• crybabylu said on Apr 10, 2008....

  The thing that has long gotten me about "Darwinism" is that Darwin himself opposed it. You say that, and see how soon you get shot down. They say that was made up by those who oppose Darwinism.

  Not true! When I and my husband were both in college. We attended several years apart and both of us studied evolution, etc. and read a journal by him stating that he wrote "The Origin Of Spiecies" as a joke. He tried to recant it, and they wouldn't let him, and apparently, his son saw a buck that could be earned in it, and resurrected the theory, and look where it is today. 

   What happened to Darwin's personal journals he wrote directly following the one mentioned above? We have tried and tried to track down the ones we studied in college and they are nowhere to be found.

  There are several conservative Christians who say they believe in intelligent design yet they too say that Darwin did not recant his theory. "The Answerman" for one, and I was very disappointed to hear that from him.

  The problem with Ben Stein being the one to take on this fight is that the "left" have for years, been trying to discredit him in other areas. If one goes on the evolution chat rooms online and/or atheist chatrooms, the arguments are hostile and brutal. Have you seen how the media already has started a 'smear' campaign against Ben Stein?

  I don't think it is the "evolutionists" who have the passion about this fight as much as it is the atheists. They are the ones, in my opinion who fight against intelligent design, and do it with a vengence.

  Why wouldn't they? They have a lot to loose if intelligent design can be proven.  Which I think it can be. There are actually some evolutionists out there who truly are looking for the truth, but when you mix them in with atheists, it turns into a free-for-all.

  Thank you, D6fer for having me take a look at this. I hope it goes somewhere, and makes some in roads into the general "pool" of God and intelligent design doubters. But, I'm not holding my breath. It is a pretty big conspiracy, as you saw in this video.

• bluegum said on Apr 10, 2008....

  top post d6fer, personaly i dont belive in the darwin theory,never saw this video till tonight.
  blue.

• TinSoldier said on Apr 10, 2008....

  I'll have to come back later, D6.

• pickersplock said on Apr 10, 2008....

  It certaily looks interesting.

• Twylarants said on Apr 10, 2008....

  I'd watch it, although I'm an atheist and don't believe in intelligent design. It looks interesting.

• bloc said on Apr 10, 2008....

  @cbl
  "and read a journal by him stating that he wrote "The Origin Of Spiecies" as a joke."
  
  i've searched for this and can't find anything about it. Can you give me a source?
  

• bloc said on Apr 10, 2008....

  I haven't finished watching it, but he starts off with a dishonest strawman. Claiming that people like me believe that humans are nothing more than mud. The same strawman also forces the issue into a binary false choice. Either we have the spark of the divine or we are nothing but mud. It's hard to take such things seriously.
  
  Ok, i'll finish watching now.
  

• pickersplock said on Apr 10, 2008....

  Rats, someone keeps stealing my Ns!

• bloc said on Apr 10, 2008....

  this preview focused on an article by stephen meyer. D6, do you have any idea what that article says? Did you read it? Do you have any reason to believe that the reaction to it was or wasn't valid?

• bloc said on Apr 10, 2008....

  I've now read several materials relating to the article and it seems clear to me that it was published by an editor on his last issue as editor, and he bypassed the typical review process for an article for which he had personal agenda and conflict of interest.
  
  The editor, who bypassed the normal review process, is a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, a Discovery Institute-affiliated group dedicated to promoting intelligent design. He also had a personal relationship with the author. Deciding to review the paper himself, and skipping the usual review process, is a clear conflict of interest for a scientific journal!

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 10, 2008....

  And also, the editor ate his french fries with mustard, a clear sign that no one can take him seriously :) Just lightening the mood a bit.

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 10, 2008....

  Besides, other than "Boom! God created it all!" or "goo-to-you-via-the-zoo", what would you consider extra options besides the "binary false choice," bloc?

• bloc said on Apr 10, 2008....

  one can believe in a non personal god can't they? One that doesn't go boom and make water into wine? Maybe in a pantheistic God is everything sort of way?
  
  The biggest problem with Stein's nonsense is that he's intentionally using emotionally charged phrasing that is extremely biased at best. he phrased the question in such a way that to say that we are all mud is to demean the value of life which no person would do. Therefore the only viable choice is that life is special, and has a divine spark. This is a false choice.
  
  Also, can't one believe that life evolved and that it has a divine spark? There are many other options and far more to the question. Stein knows this and chooses to oversimplify in a extremely biased way.
  

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 10, 2008....

  While we're on the subject of multiple choices, isn't it possible that Ben Stein has studied the matter for himself and has come to believe something passionately? That he has decided for himself and has expressed it emphatically? In other words, can't a guy express an opinion without intentionally handcrafting it to be deliberately misleading?
  
  Technically, we're all "mud" whether we like it or not, even according to the Bible. "From dust you were formed, and to dust you will return." What God said in the Bible makes sense no matter what you believe - sometimes we cremate people to expedite the process.
  
  To be fair, I have yet to watch Stein's video (work firewall prevents it...we can't even access certain paper company web sites, apparently).
  
  Thanks for detailing other possible options, bloc. The thing I question is, if someone has narrowed down those options for him/herself, and decides to share that with others, he's going to be biased in SOME way :)
  
  Besides, I loved his game show on Comedy Central.
  

• bloc said on Apr 10, 2008....

  it's more than bias, it's an attempt to paint the opposing side in a less than honest manor in an attempt to make his side seem like the only reasonable choice. One can be passionate and honest. Ben isn't.
  

• crybabylu said on Apr 10, 2008....

  Bloc, No one is saying that evolution doesn't exist in some form. Look around you, we see evolution in progress. Evolutionists and atheists using it for their own agenda, are using DNA as answer.  When the studies finally come in, and all of them consider their research, one will see how the entire process of evoloution and intelligen design both had a roll in this process.

  You refer to intelligent design as 

  " Therefore the only viable choice is that life is special, and has a divine spark."

  is, to me trying to be demeaning and prejudicial.  You are always complaining about D6 and Alien (although, I never like to defend Alien's position, never) that they don't offer sources, and then systamatically go about taking apart everything and anything that doesn't support your theory, why not look at your own comments?

  How is suggesting that God made Adam exaclty like the bible says so, demeaning?  It is your remark that has a "lightening spark" in it.

  You looked at Ben Stein's presentation the way you look at everything that doesn't support your thinking. He already explained what is happening to the Scientist's credability when they hop on the intelligent design explanation, or even hint that there might be any other explanation besides evolution alone.

  I never could argue with you very effectively, with your "education and research" data.  I am just not smart enough to present you with the facts, like you seem to be able to just roll them off your tongue without a blink.

  That is what those of a "mindset" do.  Study and study, and cross reference.  This subject must be very important to you, to be putting so much effort in it to discredit those of a different mindset.

  The rest of us are trying to live our lives in a way pleasing and acceptable before God, and to be helpers to those in need, and minister to the afflicted, any many, many more things that God has called us to do.

  We can't afford to sit here at the PC for hours researching and fighting theory, we are too busy trying to make an impact on this world that will make a difference in people's lives.

  The only reason we even have to turn our heads towards this, and address it from time to time, is because the way atheist present their arguments in this area underminds God's very existence.  Afterall, isn't that their agenda?

  We are trying to bring people closer to God, because we know by personal experience, what a personal relationship with him can do to transform lives for the better.  That is the only reason we have to address this subject at all.  What is your purpose for addressing it?

• bloc said on Apr 10, 2008....

  @cbl
  
  you said: 'You refer to intelligent design as 

  " Therefore the only viable choice is that life is special, and has a divine spark."

  is, to me trying to be demeaning and prejudicial'

  I don't see how that is being demeaning, but more importantly that's how ben stein referred to it in the video. I was simply using his terms for his side of the discussion.
  
  I thought this was a discussion about science not religion, but you've shown it for what it is. ID is an attempt to get religion through the door of science in a thin veneer of psuedo science. The problem I have is very simple, ID is not science. That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with it, I believe many things outside the realm of science. The problem is that this video is complaining that science journals don't want to publish things that aren't science. It sounds silly when stated this way, but this is what it is.
  
  I actually read the article that this video talks about and at this point I think I'm the only one that has read it in this discussion. It should not have been in a peer reviewed science journal because it wasn't science. What exactly do you guys find disagreeable with this idea?
  
  
  

• bloc said on Apr 10, 2008....

  i was thinking about htis some more and I think part of the friction comes from the fact that we're talking about a few distinct things.
  
  1. is macro evolution real?
  2. should ID be considered science?
  3. are ID proponents persecuted?
  4. is ben stein a jackass? ;)
  
  Here's my take on a per item basis.
  
  1. I believe it is, but there are missing pieces to the science.
  2. no, it's not science, but I'm open to reconsidering this if given some kind of real science to back it up. One problem is the question of who is the designer if you believe in ID. If it's supernatural then clearly it's beyond science, should not be in science journals, and should not be taught in science classes. If it's not supernatural then show me some evidence.
  3. no, the article in question was not science (i.e. there were no measurable facts supporting the theory of ID) so it should not have been published in a science journal.
  4. yes. stein is a very smart man and he understands the nuances of these issues. He chooses to paint oversimplified strawmen which he then easily tears down, they are strawmen after all.
  
  
  

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 10, 2008....

  Hmm...maybe he's not the one to seriously intellectually challenge us with this issue in the first place...which might effectively make him a strawman in terms.
  
  Haha, number 4 is the question I'm most interested in! At least, the one I laughed at the most.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 10, 2008....

  bloc.....so does this mean you are going to go see it? ;)
  
  They say they have scientific evidence to back Intelligent design.
  
  How can it be any more far fetched than evolution from nothing.....that to me makes no sense....never mind mud......everything coming from an explosion of a single mass?  Does that really make sense?
  
  At any rate....it's in the theaters on next friday April 18th.....I'll be there.....would be fun if everyone involved with the conversation could attend and then discuss it afterward!
  

• crybabylu said on Apr 10, 2008....

  bloc,  you are trying to do to me what you seem to do with everyone that even breathes a hint of religion.  You take something I say that is about my religion, and say that is what the entire thing is about.

  I am not going to waste my time talking to you any more about it. Mr. "Smarty" pants.  This happens to be my last day at soulcast, and I am going through my blog and deciding what I want to keep and what I want to delete. I don't want to spend it arguing with you.

  You always have to take anything that D6fer posts, and try to squash it with your feet, is the way I see it.  Some day there will be a discussion on all of the findings, and then what are you going to do, when Science and ID finally lock hands, like they should have been doing already?

• TinSoldier said on Apr 10, 2008....

  How can it be any more far fetched than evolution from nothing.....that to me makes no sense....never mind mud......everything coming from an explosion of a single mass?  Does that really make sense?
  
  
  Wait -- is this about evolution or the Big Bang? Because those are two very different things.
  
  Still haven't watched the video yet. While I believe in the existence of some kind of supreme being most arguments for "Intelligent Design" are pretty lame comparatively.  At least the way it is put forward.
  
  I'm more of a "Cosmic Watchmaker" kinda guy myself.
  

• bloc said on Apr 10, 2008....

  "You always have to take anything that D6fer posts, and try to squash it with your feet, is the way I see it. "
  
  D6 often sends me private messages to come to his posts. This post is one of those.
  
  @tin
  "Wait -- is this about evolution or the Big Bang?"
  
  they always conflate them :/
  
  @d6
  "They say they have scientific evidence to back Intelligent design."
  
  I've heard this many times before and when I took the time to look I found it wasn't science at all. At best it's a convincing philosophical argument along the lines of tin's "Cosmic Watchmaker".
  

• crybabylu said on Apr 10, 2008....

  Oh, I see. Well that is interesting.  Well, I never was very good at these debates, I guess that is why I cut out of them some time ago. Thank you. I didn't know that D6 liked the teter-totter, now I understand.  good day to ya all....

• crybabylu said on Apr 10, 2008....

  I forgot to say that my comments were suppose to be directed to bloc.

  Bloc, I need to get back to the tedius chore of sorting through my blog posts, so I will be signing off for now...

• hottips4u said on Apr 10, 2008....

  I know I perhaps shoudn't be here without an invite of a direct nature so please excuse me, it's but an opinion and not intrusive or against nature.
  
  I read the Bible through and through and, as well I read the Hobbit depicting the nature of a power of one.  By far the adventures projected in both had to exist within a readers comprehension between fact and fiction, or of whimsical delight.
  
  Its difficult for me to blend ID and scientific fact when the mire spark of divine light shinning upon a stem cell equates to artificial design trademarked comprehension.
  
  And therein lays my  procrastinating conclusions  of fancy and flight, I can see us no differences between us and the macaroni w/ hamburger we had for supper tonight.
  
  I have no idea if some prehistoric ape decided to over power another two legged fate, but to consider myself the result of the fraying shreds blasting like a rocket in flight, is indescribable as mixing day with night.
  
  The sciences of man are not much more than discovery's led hand and hand by holy might, or so some may say.
  
  But I tell you what, with some salt and pepper I'd eat an orke ! (sp)
  
  Jessi.         
  
  
  
  
  

• lalalalalala said on Apr 10, 2008....

  d6 !!!!
  
  i suppose if i was in a thinking sort of mood i would see this.
  
  now what's goin on with you mister ?  :-P
  

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Apr 10, 2008....

   
   
  D6fer,
   
  The Bible is shrouded in mystery, and couched in metaphor. 
  “And God’s spirit moved over the face of the waters.”
  What does that mean? What happened at the beginning of time?   
  I don’t know.  I am a Christian, but not a fool. 
  I heard the other day that comets carry with then rudimentary DNA, and we 
  know that comets have struck this planet in the past.  
  I believe that what God is, and what the Bible says God is are two different things.
  God may have made me in the image that God saw fit, but I don’t know what image that is or was.  
  I know that I’m made in God’s image, but not in the Image of God.  
  For God to do what God does, or should I say what I believe God does, would 
  require more than two hands, and feet.  
  God’s mind encompasses all that we know, or will know and more.  
  The only thing that we can do is imagine what God is, and that in the end
  is what brings us closer to God, imagination.  Peace and Long Life
   
  Love Worf 

• D6fer said on Apr 10, 2008....

  Tin....correct me if I'm wrong but without the big bang, nothing else afterward in time would exist....according to those who believe in that sort of thing....we only have one universe.
  
  crybabylu.....last day? what's up with that? And yes I invited bloc....you see, unlike my liberal counterparts, I don't have the need for everyone to agree with me......goes right to heart about what this film is really about....bloc proved Ben Steins point wonderfully, and in record time! bloc represents the side who wants to squash the opposing view point.....not even let it be heard.....I hope you will go see the movie!
  
  hottips.....no this isn't a private convo here....you are more than welcome to comment...thanks!
  
  Worf......I agree....I am not sure exactly who god is or what he has done specifically....but I do think that those that do not believe in god should give those of us that do the respect to allow both sides of the issue to be presented.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 10, 2008....

  lala! how ya doin sweetie? Hey, ya don't even have to think about it...take a look at the trailer....I suggest you go watch the film.....see for once what hollywood does not want you to see.
  
  It's interesting how the tables have turned....those who once were "sticking it to the man" are now the man.
  
  They took over our newspapers....our television....our universities...our public schools.
  They teach our kids how to put a condom on a banana, rather than teach them restraint.
  They teach them that there is no god....and refuse to let those who want to pray to do so....unless of course they are muslim.
  They teach them to cross dress......tell them to experiment with drugs and sexuallity.
  
  Liberalism is a mental disorder.
  

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Apr 11, 2008....

  D6fer,

  They took over our newspapers....our television....our universities...our public schools.
  They teach our kids how to put a condom on a banana, rather than teach them restraint.
  They teach them that there is no god....and refuse to let those who want to pray to do so....unless of course they are muslim.
  They teach them to cross dress......tell them to experiment with drugs and sexuallity.
  

  I don't totally agree wtih you here, but I understand where you're coming from.  Peace and Long Life

  Love Worf

• bloc said on Apr 11, 2008....

  i only want to squash dishonesty. I encourage honest and informed debate, it's just hard to find these days. Tinsoldier is a good example of someone who is honest, informed, and often disagrees with me.

• D6fer said on Apr 11, 2008....

  Is Stein being dishonest when he makes claims of predjudice against Scientists and educators that agree with this view?

  I don't think so.

   

  I really don't get your "strawman" ....how can you make evolution seem anymore complicated than the very beginning....it started from______....you fill in the blank....create your own strawman.

• bloc said on Apr 11, 2008....

  evolution says nothing about how life began. This is another strawman. 
  
  
  For anyone that wants some real info, read this review by scientific american. They watched the movie already.

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 11, 2008....

  Ehh...I don't think anyone's learning anything right now.

• D6fer said on Apr 11, 2008....

  ok....what did it evolve from?....go alllll the way back....enlighten us!

• bloc said on Apr 12, 2008....

  @d6
  can you think at all? evolution says nothing about how life began. All it says is how life forms evolve into different life forms. I know it's easier to argue against strawmen, but no one is buying it.

• D6fer said on Apr 12, 2008....

  thats right...it says nothing....but isn't the beginning important to evolution?

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 12, 2008....

  Okay, I finally watched the video. And I think that strawmen really have nothing to do with it. I think that other than the vocal inflection on "mud," Stein spoke of what he saw happening: intellectual bullies pressing against anyone who adheres to the notion that we came from anything BUT evolution.
  
  Don't anyone think for a second that you wouldn't have a strong opinion about this if your position in your career was affected this much by this issue. Gosh, if I had friends losing their jobs because people who thought different tried to discredit them? Well, you can't say that religious people have a better track record than the nonreligious when it comes to reacting to accusations; both sides have responded ruthlessly throughout history.
  
  From my end, I've been ridiculed quite a bit for believing that a personal God created and loves us continually. Ridiculed by those who put education and philosophy as a feather in their cap and making such suggestions that religiosity is a disease on the human race, or a mental illness in people who have it. It all smacks of desperation and a need to be right.
  
  Aside from all that...bloc...you could be much more humble when it comes to sharing your insights. I've seen you nitpick endlessly, catch other people on technicalities, and wear them down to end a debate. And I believe they, and you, learn absolutely nothing from that. Very thorough, not so tactful.
  
  On the subject of tact...D6, you and bloc have ended up debating without contributing much of anything. You take each other's words as fuel and nothing gets done. And when you add it all up, it's been awhile since there's been open and insightful discussion in this post. I expected more. Liberalism as a mental disorder?! While I prefer a universal morality, no one learns to live by morality if they think they're been accused of being mentally impaired. Sheesh.

• bloc said on Apr 12, 2008....

  @lid
  
  
  You are absolutely right about my pedantry :/ I've been trying to be more tactful and less nitpicky. It would be a lot easier if I limited my debates to people that want to consider each others ideas. Thanks for reminding me to be more welcoming and less domineering. crybaby used to do this for me, but I guess you have to take her place now ;)
  
  
  Regarding the movie. I think there is a big difference between ridiculing people for their beliefs and refusing to allow non science in scientific journals. I'm not sure that I don't believe in some form of ID myself, but I do know that I have not seen any ID that is based on science. Scientific journals should not allow something that isn't science simply because a lot of people believe it. Ben Stein is arguing that by not allowing ID (which isn't science) into science journals and classes that somehow scientists are like nazis and are destroying free speech and our country. I know that Ben Stein understand these nuances and he chooses not to deal with them and to create a strawman called "darwinism" that he compares to nazis and stalinists. (d6's clip doesn't show it, but hte movie does compare scientists to nazis). 
  
  
  Is it really persecution or ridicule for science bases institutions to not allow ID because it isn't science? 
  
  
  
  

• hottips4u said on Apr 13, 2008....

  
  
  
  • Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed 4/9/08
  • Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a Science-free Attack on Darwin 4/9/08
  
  
  
  

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 13, 2008....

  Wow bloc, that last comment pretty much floored me. I just gained a ton of respect for ya :) You get my MVP of the day award, heh.
  
  One thing I have experienced in discussing matters of creation or religion is that often a nonreligious person unashamedly questions something like Creation, and a religious person responds...or more to it, pushes back...and when they do, the discussion becomes more emotional than intellectual. I've seen it also happen where a Christian will express a strong religious belief that draws the ire of people who uphold science and worldly wisdom.
  
  I say all of that because it seems that Stein's colleagues are expressing a religious viewpoint of how we came to be, then they faced harsh opposition that wasn't always fair (they weathered attempts on their career)...and to push back, they have done so with some emotion. Should Intelligent Design be shared in schools on any level? Here's the thing...one COULD make a case that God created everything on some levels, and in the case of young earth creationism, there does exist at least one scientifically-based framework that clearly rules out evolution in favor of God's handiwork.
  
  That is but one choice, as there are evolutionist and creationists alike that borrow/adapt each other's ideas as they see fit. If someone in the scientific community tries to end the career of one who goes against the grain of accepted evolutionary theory, or belittles their credentials and blacklists their name, I believe that there is persecution going on. Doesn't it contradict a search for knowledge to completely rule out ID from educated circles?
  
  I have noticed a disturbing trend from some people that implies that if you are religious, you are less educated. That is hogwash. I personally believe that given the Earth's estimated age via carbon dating, humanity cannot yet definitively prove HOW it all started. It's hard for the average person to see God's miracles through things He created, but then again it's just as hard to "see" evolution happening. I think when America ceases to value religion, it will be harder to reign in its citizens according to one morality, and when we forget what is right and wrong, even forget WHY things are right and others are wrong, it's much easier to persecute what is different.
  
  Honestly, if mankind is the most sophisticated being on Earth, why do we "dumb ourselves down" and liken business practices, athletic and educational competition, and social circles to the animal kingdom's "survival of the fittest" mantra? If the majority belief is most popular, it WILL be hostile to another belief if we're doing survival of the fittest. That is a great point of hypocrisy for me - that some researchers will appear to be most intelligent, while treating others with different viewpoints like a wounded antelope amongst a pride of lions. Nazi Germany was certainly the fittest of its time in Europe, but few would say that the majority belief of the German nation at that time was "right."

• bloc said on Apr 13, 2008....

  thanks for those links hottips. The second I hadn't seen before and it was enlightening. 

• bloc said on Apr 13, 2008....

  @lid
  
  
  I agree with what you're saying, but I don't believe that that is what's happening in the situations described by Stein. I took the time to read the article that is one of the central pieces in Stein's movie. The one that was published in a scientific journal. It wasn't science and I think the journal was right to retract it. 
  
  
  "If someone in the scientific community tries to end the career of one who goes against the grain of accepted evolutionary theory, or belittles their credentials and blacklists their name, I believe that there is persecution going on. "
  
  
  Here's the thing. What if the person going "against the grain" is trying to force something that isn't science into science institutions? I have no problems with a science journal refusing to publish something that isn't science, and this is what happened in the example from d6's clip. If stein had given examples where real science was prevented from being published then I'd be with him. Unfortunately what he's done is created the perception of persecution when none has occured in the examples I've seen. 

• TinSoldier said on Apr 13, 2008....

  Okay, I finally got around to watching this video. I've got a lot of respect for Ben Stein, but with regards to this Youtube video I have to say "what a crock of shit"!
  
  Let me see, Stein boils the argument down to either the universe was "created by a loving god" or it came to its current state by "random particle collisions and chemical reactions". I think that there is a lot of space between those two extremes myself. Not to mention that physics and chemistry and science aren't really very "random" except in the human sense of things.
  
  Anyway, I think that it's a false dichotomy. Why can't a God have programmed the rules of the universe to work in such a way as to make sense according to the rules that we observe and measure every day? Why does He need to be "loving"? Why does he even need to be very personal? Why do the rules have to be arbitrary and unpredictable?
  
  Much like we humans had to face the hard truth that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, maybe we will eventually figure out that neither are we humans so special in God's eyes.
  
  Stein also states that "People who are confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism." I don't think that scientists and atheists are afraid of criticism. In fact, I find many of their arguments to be quite confident and even difficult to counter when I disagree with them. If anyone is less than confident in their own arguments it is the ones whose only arguments are based on faith and supposition instead of rigorously tested science and mathematics.
  
  D6fer said:
  
  Tin....correct me if I'm wrong but without the big bang, nothing else afterward in time would exist....according to those who believe in that sort of thing....we only have one universe.
  [...]
  I really don't get your "strawman" ....how can you make evolution seem anymore complicated than the very beginning....it started from______....you fill in the blank....create your own strawman.
  [...]
  ok....what did it evolve from?....go alllll the way back....enlighten us!
  [...]
  thats right...it says nothing....but isn't the beginning important to evolution?
  
  
  D6fer, there are differences between the Big Bang theory, the origin of life on Earth theories, and the theories of evolution. Science has yet to come up with an answer to the question of Life, the Universe, and Everything that is better than "42". For people who want to stop at 42, that's just fine for them, but they shouldn't teach it in science classes.
  
  Personally, I don't know the nature of God, but I believe that at least one aspect of God's nature is to have produced beings who constantly question the world around them.
  

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 14, 2008....

  Hmm...bloc, you've pointed to some behind the scenes history of what came about, and we've come to discuss this because of the video to begin with. In that sense, we've heard Stein's view before anything else, and if he sees a non-scientific piece being removed due to lack of merit in some way, I'd understand his frustration...but it does leave room for bias.
  
  It leads me to wonder...what place does Intelligent Design have in any science circles? In scientific publications? In schools? If it's met with skepticism and persecution, or mere rejection, on the grounds that it's not "scientific," I can see the logic in that...but in what place does it lie? I mean, if we die and show up in front of God all of a sudden, saying "I didn't buy into all this because it wasn't scientific enough" holds as much water as a funnel.
  
  Truthfully? There IS hostility toward intelligent design and people who adhere to it. Mostly it comes from atheists or hardcore evolutionists, it seems...but it's definitely there. Stein MIGHT have mistook the publication rejection as a sign of persecution...but the real question is what place does Intelligent Design have in education? Creationism wasn't exactly taught in schools when I was there, but I gotta be honest and say I find the idea of a loving God creating and sustaining everything to be much more comforting than the forces of nature slowly developing over billions of years to produce a hospitable planet and highly complex life.
  
  TinSoldier, I think you're absolutely right in that God did produce us with free will. He gave us the power to accept or reject Him...but in the process of that, it's better to know WHY. I think many Christians are allergic to doubt and honest questioning of the world around them, or their faith. They might think it looks bad or makes them look weak if they say something doesn't add up right in their heads when they consider God. But certainly, God gave us brains and intends us to use them.
  
  The fact of the matter is, the Bible points to the idea that knowledge of God is more valuable than scientific theory. That doesn't make science dumb by any means. It's the same idea as "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" In other words, why fret over the cost of the cow, its milk output, how to store and take care of it, what to feed it, what to name it, and whether or not to make it into hamburgers and steak when it's done...when you get the most precious thing without the hassle?
  
  So perhaps Ben Stein barked up the wrong tree, or took a weak example to make an argument. But the argument itself is a significant one...we do not want "educated" people exhibiting prejudice over religious peers because of differences in belief of how we got here. That's simply discrimination against creed.

• silverwhisper said on Apr 14, 2008....

  just tagging so i can check this out later. :>
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Apr 14, 2008....

  Hi, lidstrom.
  
  First let me apologize to both you and D6fer for my use of language up above.
  
  I was thinking about this even more this morning and my viewpoint really boils down to this: it is not the job or purpose of science to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. That would be the purpose of both philosophy and religious studies, which fields have done a find job up to this point.
  
  If a scientist doesn't understand how or why a certain process works, then the point is to find out how or why those processes work so that it can be predicted in the future, not to just give up and blame it all on God.
  
  Heh. Apropos of nothing, roleplaying gamers have a saying concerning unexplained phenomena: "A wizard did it."
  

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 14, 2008....

  Hey Tinsoldier...that's a great point you just made. It's really NOT the purpose of science to disprove God's existence, but it seems like it's been unofficially on the agenda. I think Evolution crosses that line...if it's taught as fact, a student whose household has no religious base could have a secular belief ingrained without hearing other sides (such as intelligent design). I wonder if religion does have a place in schools, simply at the point of discussing the origins of the universe and mankind. What's so threatening about mentioning Creationism or alternate methods of creation, alongside evolution?
  
  Then again, it's not the school's job to give a religious education to a child; rather it's the parents' duty to pass on a religious framework to their child. Here's where I see a breakdown though: if you tell a child what's right and wrong, but don't know/never explain WHY it's right or wrong, the child will most likely rebel. How many times did it drive us crazy when we questioned a parent's command and simply heard, "because I said so, that's why"?
  
  With Christian morality, the driving force is to love God and keep His commandments (not just the 10 Moses hawked), and to love one another as ourselves. That's very simple; living it out is extremely difficult. But the idea is, one who loves God will submit to His authority (because it's not a forced, conditional, brutal submission, nor a glossed over form of slavery)...they will do this because they know what is right or wrong, AND why it is such. I really don't think many parents are doing their jobs when it comes to teaching open-mindedness of religion.
  
  Think of what happens when a child grows up, hears only evolutionary theory (and possibly some snide comments about intelligent design from a teacher or two), attends church only at Christmas and Easter as a family tradition/obligation, and then goes to college to pursue a degree in science. I'm willing to bet they will be, at the very least, on the fence about the issue...but with "higher education" can also come a bias against religious belief. It seems that "educated" opinions come only from science, philosophy, and secularism. And that is wrong. Painting religious folk to be a bunch of boobs is a defense mechanism amongst even the most highly educated...I think this is a bit of what Ben Stein was getting at.

• bloc said on Apr 14, 2008....

  "It's really NOT the purpose of science to disprove God's existence, but it seems like it's been unofficially on the agenda."
  
  
  I'm not sure I agree with this. Ever watch a marching band? They are all in perfect unison, but if one person gets out of line that is what you will remember. I think this may be a similar case. 
  
  
  "I think Evolution crosses that line...if it's taught as fact, a student whose household has no religious base could have a secular belief ingrained without hearing other sides"
  
  
  I've never understood why religious people feel that evolution is hidden secularism. I can't a God and evolution both be true? How does evolution lead to secularism?
  
  
  "I wonder if religion does have a place in schools, simply at the point of discussing the origins of the universe and mankind."
  
  
  Fascinating question. The difficulty would be deciding which religions get taught and if those teachings are required. I think the later is a no no in our current legal system and rightly so, but I'm all for elective philosophy courses assuming they teach critical thought and not blind obedience. 
  
  
  "Painting religious folk to be a bunch of boobs is a defense mechanism amongst even the most highly educated"
  
  
  this is very true, but you have to admit that many of the most prominent "religious folks" are boobs ;) I.e. pat robertson, jerry falwell, that guy that was doing speed with a gay prostitute, etc. This is the marching band thing again. We remember the black sheep more than the rest.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 14, 2008....

  LOL yes, there are boobs on both sides :)
  
  Trust me though, bloc...anywhere there arises an ideal that people do not immediately understand, there is the potential for prejudice and ridicule. I like the marching band idea...though if Christianity is true, consider that one person out of line could be the only one playing correctly.
  
  
  The main point of difference between creation and evolution is that going by the bible, God created Adam from the dust of the earth, and formed Eve from one of Adam's ribs. This means that a highly complex being was created in a relatively short amount of time, rather than the evolutionary idea of being borne of primordial ooze. There are many positions that mix and match and are in-between, but I personally hold the belief that Creationism and Evolution are incompatible, and that mixing and matching them in many ways dilutes the accuracy of either. It's kind of like saying the Flood God brought about didn't really cover the whole Earth, thus opening up the possibility that certain parts of the planet were unaffected. Then why didn't Noah just move to the dry land? Why did he have to build a giant ark and bring two of every animal? God could have told him to move to sunny Acapulco and come back in a few months.
  
  Bloc, here's an idea: some theories and schools of thought are definitely intriguing...but sometimes they appeal to a person's pride to the point that their knowledge is somehow superior to others. That's how you get boobs like Pat Robertson claiming that 9/11 was God's punishment against America.
  
  I assert that the same is true with secularism...the idea that religion requires you to check your brains at the door is not a new one. I've faced quite a bit of religious ridicule, but not nearly as much as those who actively reach undereducated, underprivileged people. See, if the  true power in this world resides with those wealthy enough to learn heady philosophies and supreme sciences, then that leaves the majority of the world's population as the have-nots. And I am grateful that God opposes the proud, who do laud their knowledge over others (that includes Pat Robertson), and assume that their brains contain the best knowledge. Secularism is fine in the bubble that is the Western world, but a larger schema is needed to reach the goals that really matter.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 14, 2008....

  evolution says nothing about how life began. All it says is how life forms evolve into different life forms.
  
  I really can't get past this statement.....why do those of us that believe in creationism have to defend what we believe to be the beginning, but you get the luxury of dodging the issue for the sake of defending half of the debate?
  
  Does that make sense? You get where I'm coming from? Honestly, I am having trouble articulating my point here! :(
  
  bloc....your argument seems to revolve around science by definition....but isn't science ever expanding? Are the scientific methods and measures of today the same as they were 100 yrs ago?
  
  
  

• bloc said on Apr 14, 2008....

  @d6
  the scientific method is the same, the tools for measuring have surely changed. I'm not dodging anything. I find it interesting that people insist that science must have clear and absolute answers for everything. What makes life, and science, fun is that we don't know everything and we spend our lives trying to learn just a little more. The fact that science doesn't have an answer for something, or hasn't figured out every tiny detail, doesn't mean that God must have done it. That's called the God of the gaps and it's the same mentality that lead to lightning God's and blaming diseases on failures to follow religious rituals.
  
  
  @lid
  I respect your point of view, and see where you're coming from, but this quote made me laugh.
  
  
  "See, if the  true power in this world resides with those wealthy enough to learn heady philosophies and supreme sciences"
  
  
  Wealth and knowledge are separate things. I've gone from growing up poor to find myself well educated in the upper middle class. One thing I've realized is that at a certain point people with opportunity have to make a choose. Continue in a career that leads to more learning (i.e. academics) or one that leads to wealth (i.e. business). Most people have to choose one or the other, then there are the people born wealthy but never put in the work to really educate themselves. Honestly, a degree on the wall doesn't mean a whole lot. 
  
  
  Back to the film, I think you are attracted to the ideas in the film, but the facts he presents and the way they are presented are dishonest at best. 

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 14, 2008....

  I'm glad for the unintentional comedy there :) But what I was getting at, generalization or not, is that wealth brings a greater opportunity for higher education..or at least higher quality. I'm glad you and others have grown from a place of small opportunity to great opportunity...not everyone gets that, however. Besides, I was also referring to third world countries, where there's a lack of wealth AND a lack of opportunity. See? It's more than just you and me. Don't catch me on a technicality, dude. What you got out of that statement you laughed at really missed the point.
  
  The point is, I'm glad wealth and/or knowledge is not the pinnacle of what we can know and be a part of in this life, because most of the world do not have access to what many educated folk, including scientific researchers, value the most. On the other hand, sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a remote tribe gives them a purpose and a clearly defined morality. Heck, even the Old Testament teaches about basic practices of sanitation that would greatly benefit primitive or underprivileged peoples.
  
  Sure, it may sound elementary to us, but again, we're being self-centered in a way - millennia ago, sanitation was a bigger issue. It still is today in many places! No, the point is, I'd wholeheartedly pursue a source of knowledge that stresses humility. I don't always see humility in the church OR in the classroom. The deeper issue is that respect for each other is lacking in this world, and arguing intelligent design of evolution, or a variety of different philosophies, theories, or dogmas...misses the point that what we really need to do is hear each other out in a respectful manner.
  
  Merry April to all, and to all a good night!

• D6fer said on Apr 14, 2008....

  so.....you going to watch it bloc? ;)

• bloc said on Apr 15, 2008....

  @lid
  yeah, I misinterpreted your statement. It's from the usual political context in america. Liberals are often smeared as elitist academic fat cats. I think there are a lot of ways to help underprivileged people besides the Bible. We can teach about sanitation without the Bible. There are a lot of groups out there doing great work on these fronts both Christian and non-Christian. 

• bloc said on Apr 15, 2008....

  @d6
  I'm not giving it my money. If I can catch it for free I will.

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 15, 2008....

  There are many ways to help underprivileged people, for sure. I have heard it already that this can be done without the Bible. But where did we get the idea to help in the first place, I wonder? If you left it up to certain people, they'd enjoy all they have without giving much of anything back. What I'm getting at is, what if Christianity's influence upon the world as we know it has fostered an environment of service and giving, even amongst the nonreligious?
  
  I wouldn't go so far as to say that the nonreligious would never give money or time or effort without social prodding from religious or relief organizations...but again, I believe without the Bible, we'd just be giving and telling people what's good and what's not...without telling them exactly why. "I did it out of the kindness of my own heart.." where did that come from, exactly? You gave when you felt like it? What about people who need help even when you don't feel like it? Think of how much tithing Christians do that goes to helping the underprivileged...unchurched people have no such responsibility or commitment, so I think Bible-believing folks have the edge in that regard.
  
  How about that a loving God showed compassion and blessing on us, and from that gratefulness we give in the same way to others...with compassion and blessing. See, it's not just teaching someone how to live..it's teaching them why that particular way is how to live.

• bloc said on Apr 15, 2008....

  "But where did we get the idea to help in the first place, I wonder?"
  
  
  I've spend a good part of my life trying to answer this for myself. I've come to believe that the idea comes from our ability to see ourselves in other human beings. 
  
  
  If I compare the giving of those that attend church vs those that are not religious I would wager it's about the same. I have no hard stats for this, but it is inline with my personal experience. 
  
  
  The religious people I know are more vain than the non religious people I know. 

• D6fer said on Apr 15, 2008....

  If I compare the giving of those that attend church vs those that are not religious I would wager it's about the same. I have no hard stats for this, but it is inline with my personal experience.
  
  I have seen a 20/20 episode on this very subject....well...actually it was conservatives vs liberals and the conservatives gave way more to charity......I am pretty sure that conservatives are more likely to be christians than liberals are....so I think you would be wrong there bloc.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 15, 2008....

  btw.......I feel the same way about farenhiet 911 and sicko.....and maybe not even if they were free! ;p

• bloc said on Apr 15, 2008....

  building bombs doesn't count as charity ;)
  
  
  If your talking pure dollar amounts then maybe since republicans are the fat cat elitists ;) They have more to give. I'm guess that which ever party bill gates belongs to is hte party with the highest total charity dollars. Seriously, you'd have to show me some numbers for me to know what they actually were saying. I've learned that you often hear what you want. 

• D6fer said on Apr 15, 2008....

  I'll see if I can find a transcript or something....it was a real thorough peice....they went across all economic lines....poor and rich....libs lost....sorry....but lets see if I can find it.

• D6fer said on Apr 15, 2008....

  oh I am good! that took me about 20 seconds! here it is!

• D6fer said on Apr 15, 2008....

  and here is the next in the series. Source

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 16, 2008....

  Whoa now guys, be careful of making this a political issue. I say this because my parents are conservative, but they do not currently attend a church, therefore they do not tithe/regularly give. I've heard of companies taking small amounts out of paychecks to go toward charitable causes...I wonder if that counts as giving. I think it does if the employee decides to set aside an amount for it.
  
  I think the common bond of humanity is the signature of God, to be honest with you, bloc. We are created in His own image, after all. If God is the author of life, He's also the author of giving and of compassion for others. I still believe that those without God are less likely to regularly give of themselves than people who do.
  
  And as for the religious people in your life being more vain than nonreligious peeps you know...maybe it's time to run with a different crowd :) You can always see hypocrisy in people, but it is amplified when certain people hold themselves to a higher standard. However, even though they're the ones under the microscope, all the rest could also be faulted for being spiritually lazy, in God's eyes.
  

• bloc said on Apr 16, 2008....

  @d6
  thanks for the link, as a suspected it is extremely weak. They measured how much people put in a salvation army outside of a macy's in S.F. and a walmart in S.D.
  
  
  Do you really believe this can be extrapolated to the larger conclusion you drew?
  
  
  @lid
  "I think the common bond of humanity is the signature of God, to be honest with you, bloc."
  
  
  I don't, and this is probably the core of our religious difference. 
  
  
  " God is the author of life, He's also the author of giving and of compassion for others."
  
  
  Does this also make him the author of tyranny and brutality?

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 16, 2008....

  Thanks for the honesty, bloc. It's good to pinpoint the source of differences...as opposed to yelling at people without ever getting to the heart of the issue :)
  
  A perfect God creates perfect humanity, who makes a conscious choice to sin by disobeying God. The Fall of man introduced sin and all its harmful effects. Like what? Like hostility between men (tyranny and brutality are borne of human sinfulness, not a God who created them to be companions with Him. Before Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they could remain with Him in the same place; afterward, no one can look upon God and live; hence the burning bush talking to Moses...but I digress), hostility from the Earth in the form of natural disasters, illness and imperfection of the body, and so on.
  
  In short, many question or criticize a God for the sinfulness of the world, without 1) realizing that we ourselves are to blame, and 2) rejecting God's efforts to reach us and bring us above the curse upon us - namely, salvation through Jesus Christ.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 16, 2008....

  bloc....did you follow both links? I don't think that they were at all weak....they provided stats....you like stats remember? ;p
  And yes...I do think it can be extrapolated to that extent.
  

• bloc said on Apr 16, 2008....

  "I think the common bond of humanity is the signature of God, to be honest with you, bloc."
  
  
  you know, I don't really disagree with this statement. Where we differ is the definition of God and the absolutism of that definition. Here are some quotes from Einstein that sum up my feelings better than I could articulate.
  
  
  "I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
  
  
  Notice the last bit which equates God with the laws of the universe. That the way we should go about understanding life is through understanding these laws. I.e. physics, math, etc, etc.
  
  
  "To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."
  
  
  Einstein believed in an impersonal spirit behind everything. Not a personal God that judge people and influence the world.
  
  
  p.s. - how can we be "perfect humanity" and still be blamed?

• bloc said on Apr 16, 2008....

  @d6
  you think anything can be extrapolated to make your point. Even if it contradicts your point ;)

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 16, 2008....

  Einstein was a smart cookie, to be sure. One thing to remember, though, is that the basics of the Christian faith is not necessarily easier to understand for someone who has been educated in the laws we see at work in the universe. In fact, someone who prides themselves too much in any type of knowledge will actually have a harder time (generally speaking, I dunno if that applied to Einstein). The Bible explains that people who wield knowledge arrogantly will be "blinded" to God's truth in an attempt to humble them.
  
  As for your question about perfect humanity, think of a day as a child. You can be a perfect little angel for 3 quarters of a day, but if you deliberately disobey your parents and do something wrong, you're still eligible for punishment. Adam and Eve knew the consequences and decided to disobey God; the effects are still felt by us today. The Bible is a history of God's creation and sustaining of the human race...when you read of people dying by the Lord's hand, it is always punishment for disobedience. You see this most often in the Old Testament; however, God used prophets to foretell the coming of the messiah who would bring mankind back to a relationship with God. Jesus bridged the gap; those who have the Holy Spirit can know and understand the things of God, and you don't have to be an Einstein to possess it.
  
  The simple fact of the matter is that it really can be as easy as seeing our past as a human race, and seeing our own past, and recognizing the need for a savior...as well as a personal relationship with the Creator of the known universe. If you had a choice between having a father who provided everything for you but preferred to stay out of sight, or a father who actively nurtured, raised, and invested in you as often as possible...that one is a true no-brainer. Is it so hard to believe that God would be of the latter? Einstein's intellect didn't help him grasp this, but that doesn't make him dumb. It's just a matter of valuing a certain source of knowledge; that is, the Bible.
  
  I hope that clears up my position on the whole matter. The implications of a close and personal God that loves and corrects us makes our origins and everyday life vastly different than considering an entire pantheon of gods, an impersonal "clockmaker" deity, or simply the gradual development of organic matter into various lifeforms.

• D6fer said on Apr 16, 2008....

  look at the stats....read the article....you asked, and I delivered.....just wasn't the truth you wanted to hear about I guess ;)

• pickersplock said on Apr 16, 2008....

  Are you guys still at it?

• D6fer said on Apr 16, 2008....

  Hey! no girls allowed!...just kidding.....will you and Mr. Plock be going to see Expelled?

• pickersplock said on Apr 16, 2008....

  Yes, in separate theaters!

• bloc said on Apr 16, 2008....

  @d6
  i simply don't have the time to teach you how to think critically, and you don't seem interested in trying.

• D6fer said on Apr 16, 2008....

  oh I know what your idea of critical thinking is.....that's when someone agrees with you....look....you made the comment about giving and charities....I simply found the statistics to refute your opinion....maybe you could find something to prove me wrong....the ball is in your court now.....I don't think your reputation and integrity are enough here....face it.... you were wrong.

• bloc said on Apr 17, 2008....

  i think the agenda of the author of those articles is clear, especially the first one. I also think their methods are transparently faulty, but I don't feel like wasting the time showing you why because you won't listen anyway.

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 17, 2008....

  Here's one thing research and education doesn't always teach - humility.

• bloc said on Apr 17, 2008....

  nor does stupidity teach humility. 

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 17, 2008....

  Haha...you're right, but you both need a lot more of the latter and a lot less of the former. At some point you have to concede to being knuckleheads and wipe the slate clean.

• bloc said on Apr 17, 2008....

  insisting on talking snakes sounds knuckleheaded to me ;)

• lidstrom82 said on Apr 17, 2008....

  Oh geez, let it go man...speaking of snakes, you'd come dangerously close to going all boa constrictor and squeezing all the productivity out of this discussion. I'm gonna leave this sandbox, guys...no one wants to share their plastic shovels!

• D6fer said on Apr 17, 2008....

  bloc...the only thing that is weak is your argument....I am playing by the rules that you always insist on and you are being lazy about it....or just can't come up with the goods....either way....you lose ;)

• D6fer said on Apr 23, 2008....

  ok....well hopefully all that commented originally will see this.....I went to see Expelled tonight........I arrived about 20 minutes early, and I was the only person in the theater!.....I thought "wow I can't believe no one wants to see this!", then as it got closer to show time people began trickling in.....I counted them....first 2....then 3 more....1 here....2 there....ended up about 31 I believe....it's a small theater but still it was only about 20 to 25% full.
  The movie starts kind of slow....and builds as it continues.....It really was nothing that I had expected......it was great!.......unfortunately, there was so much to take in that I will probably have to rent or buy it when it comes out.
  
  To me it was not so much about the actual debate of darwinism vs ID.....but the way those that believe in ID are treated....or those who even dare say that it should be researched or debated!
  
  Even if you do not believe in ID you should see this movie.....anyone that is interested in science should see it....and definitely anyone who believes in freedom should see it.
  

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Apr 24, 2008....

  D6, This is my blog entry and my comment.  If people don’t read one maybe they’ll read the other.

   

  dis·cus·sion

  dis·cus·sion (dĭ-skŭshʹən) noun
  
  

  1.       Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.

  2.           A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.  

   

  I have read many of the comments posted on D6Fer’s “Expelled…A must see,” and I’m amazed at the number of people who don’t seem to understand what Ben Stein is saying.  A closed mind is the greatest threat to things theological, and scientific.  Darwinism is a theory, albeit one that is gaining more momentum with the advances in DNA testing.  What it doesn’t do is explain why we can find the origin of all other species, but our own. 

   

  The Creation Story is just that a story.  It is no more valid than evolution.  The simple fact of the matter is, no one was there to see what happened, and time has a way of washing away all evidence of what did.  This is where faith comes in to play; faith; the belief in things not seen, or not proven.  A theory is a leap of faith, based on observation.  This is what Darwin did, and well. It does not, however; explain everything that has happened up until now. 

   

  In my view Intelligent Design is just another way to try and find the truth.  I do not believe that God wants us to exist in a vacuum.  People would have you believe that science and the spirituality cannot together in the classroom.  I say nothing is further from the truth.  Science brings us closer to understanding the wonders of Gods creation.  To say that God is not present in science does it a disservice.

   

  God wants us to know and understand his creation.  To that end he has given us curiosity, and imagination; the two things that in my view bring us closer to God, and understanding Gods creation.  Our greatest enemy is our own close mindedness; an inability to see beyond what we have been taught to believe.  To base a belief system on texts that were, in some cases, were written five thousand years ago is not a bad thing if you are able to take into account that we are not living five thousand years ago, and therein lays the problem, most people can’t. 

   

  “Hard” scientists, or scientific zealots, are just as much to blame as religious ones. To totally dismiss spirituality and religion as a farce of some kind is just as much a disservice to all human kind.  Intelligent design, in my opinion seeks to bring science and spirituallity back together where they belong. 

   

  I believe that God want us to understand.  Now you can believe that, or you can doubt that, it’s entirely up to you.  I’m a Christian.  I believe in God the Father Almighty creator of Heaven and Earth, but I too wonder “How did God do that, and why?”  I think Intelligent Design seeks to answer some of those questions.  I don’t know about you, but I would like an answer if it’s possible to find one. No harm ever came from asking a question.  The harm comes from peoples reaction to the question.  Peace and Long Life

   

  Love Worf              

• bloc said on Apr 24, 2008....

  "What it doesn’t do is explain why we can find the origin of all other species, but our own. "
  
  
  I don't believe this is true in a matter of fact sense, or in what you are implying, that humans are somehow special on this issue. 
  
  
  "Intelligent design, in my opinion seeks to bring science and spirituallity back together where they belong. "
  
  
  Frankly, I find this statement arrogant because it assumes that your idea of God is the right one and that everyone else should learn it. Before you say that science is the same, remember that science is based on measurable evidence. 
  
  
  I'm not an atheist, and I don't believe that spirituality is a "farce of some kind", but I see ID for what it is. An attempt to sneak a particular belief set into a realm it doesn't belong since it has no scientific backing.

• pickersplock said on Apr 24, 2008....

  So it was good, D?

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Apr 24, 2008....

  Bloc,
  
  What I'm saying is we can't find our link to any other species.  Human being just seen to have appeared, and no body has been able to find the link.   From ape to Neanderthal, to Java to us?  I know I left out a few, but my point is nobody has been able to find the "Missing Link."  Peace and Long Life
  

• bloc said on Apr 24, 2008....

  I'm not sure if you saw this back when it was posted. It's convincing to say the least. I'm always skeptical of the God of the gaps argument. I.e. we haven't figured this part out therefore God is the answer. We've seen this argument fall time and time against throughout history.
  
  
  I apologize for my harsh tone earlier, I just get frustrated at a certain pattern. First the person tries to soften up the crowd, then come some abstract and true wisdom, finally comes the non sequitur conclusion. It goes something like this.
  
  
  1. We should all consider each others opinion and there are multiple ways to the truth, yada yada yada
  
  
  2. "Our greatest enemy is our own close mindedness; an inability to see beyond what we have been taught to believe. "
  
  
  3. Therefore my personal beliefs should be taught in science classes alongside science because science is nothing if not attached to my personal beliefs?
  
  
  What about other beliefs? Should they be taught in science classrooms too? Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Scientology? I mean, they are all seeking the truth right, and spirituality is a part of science so all of these should be taught in science. I'm not sure where we'll find time for science, you know the thing that has taught us the most about the world.
  
  
  Here's the problem with what Ben Stein is saying. He's trying to deceive people by creating strawmen and comparing science to nazism. He frames the questions in dishonest ways to say the least.
  
  
  I can go on, you know things like the fact that a theory in science is something that is backed by evidence and is not a mere opinion, but you've heard all that before. It seems that no matter how many times you point out such things people will continue imply the opposite. 

• D6fer said on Apr 24, 2008....

  bloc....interestingly enough....what I got from the movie was not what you assume it is all about....there are scientists and professors out there that simply are challenging darwins theory and are being shut out for it.....they have evidence that darwins theory could be false.....darwin himself was challenging traditional science of the time....isn't that what the future of science is all about?
  
  Stein didn't compare science to nazism....he explained the credible link between darwinism and nazism......eugenics.
  
  The strawmen you speak of didn't appear in my opinion....maybe in the trailer, but in the movie they went into detail of how scientists have tried unsuccessfully  to recreate the beginning of life on earth....they even allowed darwinists to have the opportunity to explain how life began.....some pretty ridiculous answers......"on the backs of mutating crystals" and my favorite "possibly some higher life form in the universe started life here".....unbelievable! just because they cant prove how it started here!
  
  I really have more questions than anything at this point.....having never studied on this subject, I found it somewhat overwhelming.....but it was very interesting, and entertaining........the extreme attitudes that the "mainstream" establishment displayed was pretty amazing....and funny......practically foaming at the mouth!
  

• Antimatter said on Apr 25, 2008....

  It's about time I added my thoughts to this thread. Tagging for later.

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Apr 25, 2008....

  Bloc,
  I'm sorry that's what you come away with in reading my comment.  I would be the first to tell you that there is more than one path to the truth.  My way is not the only way.  It is, however; the path that I have chosen.  If you chose a different path, that's fine.  Whatever you feel comfortable doing, or believing is fine.  Intelligent Design is just another path along the way to truth.  I do not believe it should be shut down or dismissed out of hand because it doesn't jibe with with the established version of the truth; which as we all know is relative.  Peace and Long Life
  
  Love Worf 

• bloc said on Apr 25, 2008....

  "there are scientists and professors out there that simply are challenging darwins theory and are being shut out for it"
  
  
  And this isn't true. That's why he's lying. And the fact that nazis justified their acts with quasi science doesn't mean that evolution has anything to do with nazis. This is like saying that Christianity is about molesting children because some cults have justified their child molestation with their faith.
  
  
  Ben Stein understands these distinctions, but he chooses to deceive people.
  
  
  Show me one credible piece of science that has been "shut out"! Not 5 or 10, but 1. Take the time to pick the most convincing case and I'll take the time to look into it. I did this already with the example he used in the trailer and found that he was attempting to deceive and not telling the real truth. 

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Apr 25, 2008....

  Bloc,
  
  "And this isn't true. That's why he's lying. And the fact that nazis justified their acts with quasi science doesn't mean that evolution has anything to do with nazis. This is like saying that Christianity is about molesting children because some cults have justified their child molestation with their faith."
  
  I think that's a stretch.  What I got from that was Nazi like tactics are being used to discredit anyone who would dare to go against that which the establishment holds so dear.  Now, as to finding you a credible piece of evidence your on your own with that.  If your mind is made up  I think that there is little if anything that I can do to change it.  All I have ever sought is the truth.  I do that by asking questions.  Sometimes I don't like the answers that I get, but I realize that the fact I don't like something does not make something less true, whatever that may be.  Peace and Long Life
  
  Love Worf
  

• bloc said on Apr 25, 2008....

  "What I got from that was Nazi like tactics are being used to discredit anyone who would dare to go against that which the establishment holds so dear."
  
  Exactly, this is what Ben Stein is implying, and it's bullshit. I guess it's easier to make ad hominem attacks towards me than to show evidence for the false claims of Ben Stein. That's telling.
  
  I seek the truth as well. I came to this discussion with an open mind and I spent a couple hours researching it. What I found was no evidence supporting Stein's claims and a great deal of deception on his part. I'm more than happy to spend another couple of hours looking into a claim that real science has been "shut out". So far I'm the only one in this thread that has given a factual account of a specific instance of such a claim.
  
  You are claiming that my mind is made up already, yet you have come here and made some bold claims with no specific examples. I have taken the time to research one specific claim of Ben Steins, returned with facts regarding that claim, and concluded that Ben Stein is lying after my research. It seems that you are the one whose mind was made up prior to asking questions about the reality of the situation. Please correct me if I am wrong with an example of evidence based science being discredited with nazis like tactics. Such a bold claim deserves some examples!
  

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Apr 25, 2008....

   Bloc,

  The problem here is you are stuck on Ben Stein and what he said to call attention to a field of study that is being undermined by the Status Quo.  Ben Stein is not the first person to exaggerate a position to call attention to it, and he will not be the last.  My post is about Intelligent Design, not what Ben Stein said to call attention to the field.  For the record, Ben stein in the clip gave examples of the tactics used against people who write, and speak about the concept.  You say those claims are false.  I say to you prove it.  Give me an example.  As a matter of fact you don’t even have to do that.  I’m satisfied with your assertion that Ben Stein is lying.  So let’s move on to the topic of Intelligent Design.  Which is what my posted comment is about.  Check out this web site, and get back to me I would be interested in your thoughts.  http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/  Peace and Long Life

   

  Love Worf    

• bloc said on Apr 25, 2008....

  "You say those claims are false.  I say to you prove it.  Give me an example.  As a matter of fact you don’t even have to do that."
  
  
  This is a long thread so you may have missed it, but I posted details about the case that Ben Stein makes and I feel I have shown that the claims are false. Did you see my comments on this from earlier?
  
  
  I checked your link and here is the first part I disagree with. They claim that ID is a science yet I haven't seen any science behind it. There are two reasons for this. All of their claims are non sequiturs. Second, they present no evidence of the actual designer and go out of their way to avoid the obvious questions that it would bring forward.
  
  
  Here is the standard non sequitur.
  (premise) current evolutionary theory can't explain xyz (conclusion) therefore a designer did it. This conclusion does not follow from the premise and no explanation is given for the designer and no measurable evidence of the designer itself.
  
  
  Here's the next major problem. There is no scientific timeline of creation based on ID. For example, that species x was created at time y and species n was created at time m. Can you give me the scientific ID timeline of creation?
  
  
  Do you believe that ID is a science? This is the core of this issue. I've looked into this with an open mind and as I've said I am not an atheist. I see no science behind ID. If one concludes that ID as it's promoted today is not science then it's not persecution for a scientific journal to refuse to print something that isn't science. So I'm curious to know if you believe that ID is a science.
  
  

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Apr 25, 2008....

  "Here is the standard non sequitur.
  (premise) current evolutionary theory can't explain xyz (conclusion) therefore a designer did it. This conclusion does not follow from the premise and no explanation is given for the designer and no measurable evidence of the designer itself."
  
  Bloc,
  
  I don't believe it's a non sequitur, but I wold say that the reasoning is not very sound.  I don't know anybody who can give a tiime line of creation except God, and God's not talking. 
  
  Here's what I get from it: Nobody knows what happened in the beginning of time.   Scientist  speculate on how the  universe and the  planets were created, and that's all good.  Things in their infancy take time to develop.  Mistakes in science are the norm not the exception.  I keep that in mind when I'm reading about a new theory. Remember GUT The Grand Unification Theory, or String theory, all of then were ideas that didn't pan out at the time they were introduced.  People keep plugging and progress is being made. 
  
  The ID is no different.  It's a new idea, and as such will make mistakes and possibly new discoveries. Like anything else all it needs is a chance.
  
  Bloc, you were already here when I started writing back in 2006.  I always liked and I still do.  you were one of the first people I subscribed to.  I like you because you're a strait shooter.  I want you to know I appreciate that, and the fact that you can do that without being rude.  That's something I wish you could teach some others her at Soulcast. 
  
  Oh, don't get me wrong I'm not through with you yet :) I just wanted you to know that I appreciate having a conversation with someone who has more than a 7 word vocabulary. I'm off the watch Rev. Wright On Bill Moyer's Journal now. talk to you later.  Peace and Long Life
  
  Love Worf    
  

• bloc said on Apr 25, 2008....

  thanks :) I often feel that I was rude after I say things and feel bad about it afterwards. I've certainly been rude to d6 in the past.
  
  
  "Nobody knows what happened in the beginning of time."
  
  
  This is true, but I think there are some important points to make about this. Evolution doesn't say anything about the beginning of time yet a lot of ID proponents somehow try to claim that evolution isn't real because it doesn't explain the beginning of time. When someone says this it's a sign that they don't know what the theory of evolution actually says. On a side note, I'm not certain there was a beginning of time. 
  
  
  "Like anything else all [ID] needs is a chance."
  
  
  I'm fine with this if there is science behind it or if it stays in the realm of philosophy and religion. Let me give one example of my problems with ID. The essay mentioned in the preview that D6 posted in his original post is about a certain period in history. It is not about the beginning of time! During this period many species already existed on earth and a fair number came into existence. The essay claims that the theory of evolution can not explain the volume of species that came into existence during this period therefore a designer did it (the usual non sequitur). 
  
  
  Here's what I find troubling. As I said it is about a specific period of time, that isn't the beginning of life, in which a number of species came into existence. If they didn't evolve then how did they appear? Did a few fully grown animals suddenly pop into existence in the middle of some forest? The essay doesn't say and stays as far away from this sort of question as it can. 
  
  
  This is why ID isn't a science. It offers no explanation of it's assertion about this time period. All the essay did was try to poke a few holes in evolution (this is valid science if done honestly) then assert a conclusion (a designer did it) that has no backing science. 
  
  
  My understanding of the movie is that this is the central example of the persecution of ID and after taking the time to read the actual essay and research it, I can only conclude the opposite. This example is not scientific and I see no problem not allowing it in a scientific journal. I have no problems with it in a philosophy journal, but science measurable things. There were no measurable evidence for the assertions made in that essay.
  
  
  And I would still like to know how a species suddenly pops into existence on earth if it didn't evolve. I'd like to know who the "designer" is. None of the quasi science of ID will answer these questions. Does the designer magically pop one male and one female animal into existence or a whole bunch at once? Does the designer make a few at a time? 
  
  
  The ID theory in the essay offered no theories on this, and no science.
  
  
  
  

  
  

  
  

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Apr 25, 2008....

  Bloc,
  
  Dude, you've worn me down for today.  I'm going to go and play guitar and think about all that was said here today.  I will say this, philosophy seeks truth, and so does science.   They may go about it in different ways, but the outcome is the same. 
  
  If you say to me X, therefore Z, my question to you would be; how did you get to Z what happened to Y?  It's not a non sequitur because X does follow Z, but Y explains how you got there in the first place.  Logic is also a part of science and philosophy.  All that you have argued to me today  says  that you see X, therefore Z, and the problem is you need Y.  Peace and Long Life
  
  Love Worf
  

• bloc said on Apr 25, 2008....

  no no, the problem is that ID says Z, therefore Z, and hopes no one asks about Y. I'm asking about Y and finding that ID doesn't have an answer ;)
  
  
  science and philosophy/religion both seek truth, but science is based on measurable evidence. This is an important distinction, and I think the claim of persecution is bullshit because ID isn't based on measurable evidence. 
  
  
  I'm still waiting on some proponent of ID to answer some of these questions :/

• D6fer said on Apr 25, 2008....

  Worf....thanks for articulating what I can not! I am one of those with a seven word vocabulary! ;)
  bloc....thanks also for the debate....I have enjoyed reading both of your responses...
  The examples of persecution are in the movie....i wish I had taken a pen and paper with me, so that I could have written down names and other info.
  I don't think that I am ready to take on this debate until I have had more time to research and possibly see the movie a few more times.....i really wish that you would watch it as well, so that we are not debating second hand information or hearsay.
  Fair?
  

• bloc said on Apr 25, 2008....

  well, my core argument is based on the example in the preview of the movie. The truth is that my wife loves to go to movies and we have only been to one in the 6 months since baby bloc arrived. It's hard to make it with the baby and if we do I doubt she'll be up for this movie.

• D6fer said on Apr 26, 2008....

  I bet it will be out for rental shortly.....it was a limited release

• pickersplock said on Apr 26, 2008....

  Wow, 107 comments!  Bloc, we took our baby to the movies all the times!

  He'd nurse and fall asleep!  A friend told me about that little trick!

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Apr 26, 2008....

  D6,
  
  I enjoyed this little Conversation. I should tell you though, when I say 7 word vocabulary what I'm referring to are people who have no other way to express themselves than to curse and name call as if they were still in Junior high school.  
  
  Also I was wondering whe you would come back and join the discussion that you Started! :)  Bloc, and I have been having a ball! going back and forth. 
  
  Bloc, thanks so much for the spirited conversation.  It's been a long time since I've been able to have one of those here.  It was beginning to look like I might never have one again.  It's good to "Lock Horns" every now and them.  I think I'll see if I can find out if this movie is still playing.  If it's not somewhere in The City of New York it's probably gone by the way side by now.  Peace and Long Life Guys
  
  Love Worf
  

• D6fer said on Apr 26, 2008....

  worf......I don't usually get to be on here when everyone else is....I am west coast, and work a full time job as well as run a small business....so it keeps me pretty busy.....this is an addiction that I dont want to break though.....so I always manage to pop in at night usually, and get my digs in. ;)

• bloc said on Apr 26, 2008....

  @d6
  i didn't know you were on the west coast. Are you close to socal? I knew you came on at night, but I know a lot of night owls and for some reason assumed you weren't on the west coast.

• LtCmdrWorf1 said on Apr 26, 2008....

  D6,
  
  I hear ya'. I'm on the East Coast it's 10:30 pm here.  Soon I will go to bed so I'll be well rested for church in the morning.   I'll play here for a little while longer, and then call it a night.  This is addictive though, isn't it :)  Peace and Long Life
  
  Love Worf
  

• D6fer said on Apr 27, 2008....

  bloc....no I'm in Wa state.
  
  worf....yes it is!
  

• TinSoldier said on Apr 27, 2008....

  Hey, if you're up near the Lake Stevens/Everett/Marysville area, we should get together. I go up there about 4-5 times a year.
  
  PM.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 27, 2008....

  used to be.....I lived in Everett for a couple of years....moved back to the eastside to dry out! 

• TinSoldier said on Apr 27, 2008....

  Heh. I'm from the more eastern/drier part of Oregon myself, but I have to live near Portland in order to make ends meet.
  
  I've got in-laws in Everett, Marysville, and Lake Stevens. Heh. I would really rather live in Everett myself -- it seems to me to be like what Portland should be.
  
  Sorry about the off-topic. I know that you come down this way once in awhile so feel free to let me know if/when you do.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 27, 2008....

  I'm in the hood river / the dalles area from time to time....don't make it to portland too often....except on the way to lincoln city......go there about every other year or so.

Comment on "Expelled.....a must see!"

Currently tagged	intelligent design neo darwinism god Ben Stein oppression procrastinating darwinism evolution creationism religion (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously