Ben Stein Expelled

[mek]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

ID makes sense to me. You have to start somewhere, and if you break anything down small enough, or go back in time far enough, you hit a brick wall.

Also, I don't see how evolution and ID are mutually exclusive. I don't see how theories like the Big Bang and ID are mutually exclusive.

You don't understand what ID is, then. Science agrees with you on the brick wall thing, though. It seems pretty much impossible to understand/comprehend what could have possibly existed before that big bang event.

Anyway, as usual, the argument against evolution is "it just doesn't SEEM possible" yeah well, you're an idiot, maybe you should pick up a textbook and read, people have spent >100 years studying exactly how and why it is possible, and they've WRITTEN IT ALL DOWN, it requires zero faith just a willingness to learn. People dedicate their ENTIRE LIVES to this kind of research, and you toss it on a gut feeling that it seems implausible from your view in your armchair? OK chief, then I'll ignore you based on MY gut feeling that you're retarded.

[Cane]

It sounds like you're talking about a "Prime Mover," which I think was Pascal's idea. I've read that the idea of the Prime Mover is attractive but not at all necessarily true. There could be multiple simultaneous first occurrences or movements. Also, the fact that "something" must have been around to cause a big bang has no more empirical evidence for it than the idea that there was nothing. You can use logic to argue that from our experience, something cannot come from nothing, but the beginning of the Universe is actually entirely outside the realm of our experience. Also, let's grant for a second that "something" caused the Big Bang, and then let's be so generous as to call that thing God. Who says God cares about people, religion, morality? What if he's a giant space beetle and we're all his dream. My impression is that the people who started the ID movement were just repackaging creation science to sound less overtly religious. If you want to believe in God, that is fine, but I think you should be willing to concede that there is no proof for his existence, least of all his existence as a specifically Judeo-Christian bearded guy who is extremely finicky about sex and dieting.

[Pasteton]

Originally Posted by Millie

If God does exist, I think the earliest and most primitive attempts at understanding God are, ironically, the most accurate. God is probably not an anthropomorphicized persona, as depicted in most of humanity's organized religions. Nor is he a series of anthropomorphicized characters, as depicted in the Hindu pantheon, or the Greco-Roman pantheon, etc. Most likely, "God" is best described as an organizing force. It's less a "cosmic man in the sky," and more an all-encompassing order behind existence. A sort of divine system, if you will. I don't think such a system would necessarily be moral or immoral, perfect or imperfect. It simply is. And I think "it" or "It" is a better pronoun than "He" or "She."

fwiw, this is a pretty simplified and frankly inaccurate understanding of the hindu religion's concept of 'god'. It's difficult to explain on a msg board but basically hinduism (and later buddhism) was as far as i know one of the first religions to think of 'god' as this einsteinian force (something along the lines of sagan's definition) rather than a distinct entity in the form of a human/animal or any other being.

Pick up one of the translated copies of the 'upanishads' if you're curious more on this, as this is one of the earliest scriptures in hindu philosophy. the vedas and some other fables in hinduism(which involve the various incarnations/avatars) are more mythology, and aren't meant to represent the beliefs of hinduism the way that stories in western religions represent their religion (ie jesus, hung on the cross etc)

[Schatze]

ID; if life is too complex to have evolved without a designer, where did the designer himself come from?

Poof, you now realize ID is nothing more than creationism dressed in different clothes. ID does not make any sense otherwise.

ID is also not a "first cause" problem as it refers specifically to the development of life on earth.

[Pasteton]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

ID makes sense to me. You have to start somewhere, and if you break anything down small enough, or go back in time far enough, you hit a brick wall. I don't think we will ever be able to, through science, explain the origin of all matter in the universe. I feel that it makes perfect sense that if something exists, it had to come from somewhere, and the only plausible explanation if you go back to the absolute origin is that it was created. I don't see a logical scientific explanation for how something came from nothing.

Also, I don't see how evolution and ID are mutually exclusive. I don't see how theories like the Big Bang and ID are mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible that the creation the Bible describes could be God setting into motion the events that would cause a Big Bang.

From an engineering perspective, you can think of it in terms of system theory, which seeks to model any function as an input-output system. Let's say we want to model the structure of the universe as a function of time. You need a state, and an input. non-ID science cannot tolerate a nonzero input, because it would imply that there is some influence outside of the system affecting the output. Since our system is the universe, that would be saying there is some power beyond the universe affecting our results. However, setting input to zero means the state of the system must be nonzero. However, even if you found a function that perfectly fits the data (ie it perfectly models the universe, setting our origin at the Big Bang or whatever), the amount of matter in the universe must remain constant, because a fundamental principle in all fields of science states that the mass of a closed system must remain constant. Because our system encompasses EVERYTHING, non-ID science states that we MUST start with as much matter as we "end" with. So where did all this matter come from? There is no explanation, unless you accept that there can be an input function that creates the initial matter. It makes perfect mathematical sense to me that God exists, because you cannot really accurately model anything as a function of time in the system of the universe unless you allow for some extra-universal input.

I realize most people who read this probably aren't believers in ID, but I just wanted to add my point of view, because I've never really even questioned the idea that God exists since it makes perfect sense to me.

this is the fundamental arguement of ID, which is fine and all, because humans by nature can't handle unexplained phenomenon and questions that are left unanswered. Whether you approach this aspect of your human nature by feeling secure that the answer is there is a creator underneath it all that explains these things, or whether you want to approach the issues scientifically is up to you, or even whether you are content believing the first while pursuing the 2nd seems fine as well. The issue of ID is simply that it is being passed off as a science, or confused people are thinking of it as a science, which is basically undermining the principles of what science and the 'scientific method' means. Because current scientific principles and understanding don't explain the fundamental 'input', that absolutely does not imply an 'if then' clause that a divine creator is the only solution. Stating this is not 'logic', it is faith, and representing it as the former is the main problem of the ID movement.

[Pinchandroll]

You don't understand what ID is, then.

I'm just going on the wikipedia definition and the assumption that it means God exists and is the creator of everything. I'm assuming there are countless subgroups within that statement, though, ranging from "there is no science and God crafts everything by hand" to "God set things in motion then disappeared." If it's a more strict definition then perhaps I'm no longer arguing for ID but simply the existence of God, which I don't mind but maybe it is diverging from the topic a bit.

It sounds like you're talking about a "Prime Mover," which I think was Pascal's idea. I've read that the idea of the Prime Mover is attractive but not at all necessarily true. There could be multiple simultaneous first occurrences or movements. Also, the fact that "something" must have been around to cause a big bang has no more empirical evidence for it than the idea that there was nothing. You can use logic to argue that from our experience, something cannot come from nothing, but the beginning of the Universe is actually entirely outside the realm of our experience.

I googled Prime Mover, and that seems to fit my point of view pretty well. I would argue, however, that there is no evidence against a prime mover, while there is a wealth of evidence against the universe starting from nothing without outside influence.

Also, let's grant for a second that "something" caused the Big Bang, and then let's be so generous as to call that thing God. Who says God cares about people, religion, morality? What if he's a giant space beetle and we're all his dream. My impression is that the people who started the ID movement were just repackaging creation science to sound less overtly religious. If you want to believe in God, that is fine, but I think you should be willing to concede that there is no proof for his existence, least of all his existence as a specifically Judeo-Christian bearded guy who is extremely finicky about sex and dieting.

First off, if we assume that God belongs to one of the major historical religions, there is overwhelmingly more evidence for the Judeo-Christian God than any other. There is, in turn, overhwhelmingly more evidence for an Islamic god or Greek gods than a giant space beetle. If there was a historical religion worshipping a giant space beetle complete with personal accounts that do not contradict each other as well as historical secular documents supporting their writings... then that might be more of an argument. As it stands however, there are plenty of writings concerning Jesus that contain verifiable names, locations, and events. Some people who knew Jesus personally, and many more who believed purely on faith suffered ostracization, discrimination, torture, imprisonment, and death for their beliefs.

So, I think that your last sentence is inaccurate, and should read as this instead: If you want to believe in God, that is fine, but I think you should be willing to concede that there is substantial historical evidence for his existence, especially as a specifically Judeo-Christian bearded guy who is extremely finicky about sex and dieting, while there is no historical evidence for a space beetle.

[Zerai]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

I realize most people who read this probably aren't believers in ID, but I just wanted to add my point of view, because I've never really even questioned the idea that God exists since it makes perfect sense to me.

See, the easiest argument about the God thing is: who created God? If you go oh, no one, he just always existed. Well why can't that be true for the universe as well?

Until you can answer that question, ID is and will always be crap.

Wait wait..there is more evidence for a Judeo-Christian God? So in other words, because more people believed in it, it's more true? Oh wow. No. There is no proof for any of them. They are all just as likely.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Pasteton

fwiw, this is a pretty simplified and frankly inaccurate understanding of the hindu religion's concept of 'god'. It's difficult to explain on a msg board but basically hinduism (and later buddhism) was as far as i know one of the first religions to think of 'god' as this einsteinian force (something along the lines of sagan's definition) rather than a distinct entity in the form of a human/animal or any other being.

Pick up one of the translated copies of the 'upanishads' if you're curious more on this, as this is one of the earliest scriptures in hindu philosophy. the vedas and some other fables in hinduism(which involve the various incarnations/avatars) are more mythology, and aren't meant to represent the beliefs of hinduism the way that stories in western religions represent their religion (ie jesus, hung on the cross etc)

Fair enough. I'll fully admit I don't know a lot about Hinduism. At the same time, what's with all those mythological gods and "characters" like Vishnu, Shiva, etc? I understand they're probably not separate "gods" in the mold of the Olympian pantheon, but even still, they're pretty far removed from a totally Einsteinian perception of the divine. Even if they're meant to be manifestations of the same spirit/cosmos/conscience/whatever, some of my point about them still stands. I think. I dunno. At any rate, I apologize for describing Hinduism in a less-than-fair light.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

...non-ID science states that we MUST start with as much matter as we "end" with. So where did all this matter come from? There is no explanation, unless you accept that there can be an input function that creates the initial matter. It makes perfect mathematical sense to me that God exists, because you cannot really accurately model anything as a function of time in the system of the universe unless you allow for some extra-universal input.

a) That's not necessarily true. Pre-Big Bang theories of the universe exist in modern studies of cosmology, astronomy, and physics. Generally speaking, it is believed that the universe existed as a singularity -- a tiny point with near-infinite mass -- that exploded into the foundations of what are now the universe. Some scientists believe the expansion is destined to continue forever. Some believe that the universe is undergoing a cycle: that it will expand, then steadily condense back into another singularity, then repeat itself. Furthermore, they believe this cycle has probably already happened numerous times. At any rate, there is a TON of science being done to try to figure out the origins of the pre-Big Bang universe, and I suggest you educate yourself about it before dismissing it with the wave of a hand.

I realize that thinking about what happened before the singularity, before the Big Bang, and "before the before" is a frustrating thought exercise. But just because we can't comprehend what that state was like, or how the beginning began, doesn't mean we should give up and call the starting point of all incomprehensibility "God." "God" should not be a stopgap measure we invent at the boundary where our understanding fails and our ignorance begins.

b) The whole "we don't understand this; therefore we can't understand it; therefore it's God's work" line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Every year we uncover hundreds to thousands of things previously thought unknown, unthinkable, or impossible. Hell, if you were to go back in time even 100 years and show people a modern-day iPod, they'd freak out and think it was Satan's work. The point is, "irreducible complexity" is a fallacious theory at its core. Just because we don't understand something today doesn't mean we can't ever figure it out. (Nevermind the fact that everything ID advocates have claimed was "irreducibly complex" has already been figured out)

[mek]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

First off, if we assume that God belongs to one of the major historical religions, there is overwhelmingly more evidence for the Judeo-Christian God than any other. There is, in turn, overhwhelmingly more evidence for an Islamic god or Greek gods than a giant space beetle. If there was a historical religion worshipping a giant space beetle complete with personal accounts that do not contradict each other as well as historical secular documents supporting their writings... then that might be more of an argument. As it stands however, there are plenty of writings concerning Jesus that contain verifiable names, locations, and events. Some people who knew Jesus personally, and many more who believed purely on faith suffered ostracization, discrimination, torture, imprisonment, and death for their beliefs.

I think your definition of "evidence" needs looking at. We don't have any evidence of any gods, we have plenty of documentation of many, but that doesn't serve as evidence. We might know a lot about Santa Claus, but that isn't evidence of existence, obviously. The real god could be chilling with his chosen people on the far side of the universe.

[Pinchandroll]

See, the easiest argument about the God thing is: who created God? If you go oh, no one, he just always existed. Well why can't that be true for the universe as well?

Until you can answer that question, ID is and will always be crap.

If you say the universe just "always existed" and leave it at that, then you violate plenty of scientific laws. Science asserts that the universe is governed by a certain set of laws, and assuming matter has always been there for an infinite time violates the law that causal systems have an origin. You hit the brick wall I mentioned earlier, where all of our scientific laws fail. Just the concept of infinite time is mind-boggling, and doesn't make any sense. I find it far less logical to accept that matter has simply been floating forever without any point of origin than that there was a point of origin, the beginning of the universe.

Wait wait..there is more evidence for a Judeo-Christian God? So in other words, because more people believed in it, it's more true? Oh wow. No. There is no proof for any of them. They are all just as likely.

I never said that "because more people believed in it, it's more true. I also never said there is proof for anything. I said there is overwhelmingly more historical evidence for the Christian God, and if we operate under the assumption that there is some unknown God out there, then it is statistically most likely to be the Christian God based purely on historical evidence.

If I told you that you had to either pick a space beetle or the Christian God as being the true Creator, and if you chose wrong you would be tortured and then slowly killed, while if you chose correctly you would be given a billion dollars... which would you pick? Do you really think they are equally likely?

EDIT:

I think your definition of "evidence" needs looking at. We don't have any evidence of any gods, we have plenty of documentation of many, but that doesn't serve as evidence. We might know a lot about Santa Claus, but that isn't evidence of existence, obviously. The real god could be chilling with his chosen people on the far side of the universe.

If I say I saw an alien in the bushes outside my room, you probably wouldn't believe me. What if someone else that I've never met says he was walking down the street and saw an alien run out of the bushes near a house and disappear around the corner? Then my neighbor calls the police because he is sure he saw an alien in his neighbor's yard. What if suddenly there are 10 different accounts of an alien running around my yard? Let's say none of these people have talked to each other before - how do you explain it? Then you uncover some manuscript from 5000 years ago predicting that there will be an alien running around someone's yard in southern California in the future. You cross-check all the individual accounts and there isn't a single contradiction; all the descriptions are definitely of the same creature. Now it's not so easy to dismiss my claim as a made up story. I would say that can be classified as "evidence" of an alien. Not proof, since all we have is eyewitness accounts and prophesies, but definitely evidence.

[Kaosu]

Originally Posted by Millie

Well, personally speaking, I think UU is just a catch-all belief system. It's sort of like hedging all bets. That's not really my personal belief. My personal philosophy is "There is probably no higher/supernatural organizing power/principle within the universe, but if there is, it's well beyond what we as a species have come up with to describe it so far."

I really meant that as a joke, because UU is so broad and general, its like the ultimate safety net. But not really.

Who needs to place their bets on one table, when they can bet on all of them?

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

If I say I saw an alien in the bushes outside my room, you probably wouldn't believe me. What if someone else that I've never met says he was walking down the street and saw an alien run out of the bushes near a house and disappear around the corner? Then my neighbor calls the police because he is sure he saw an alien in his neighbor's yard. What if suddenly there are 10 different accounts of an alien running around my yard? Let's say none of these people have talked to each other before - how do you explain it? Then you uncover some manuscript from 5000 years ago predicting that there will be an alien running around someone's yard in southern California in the future. You cross-check all the individual accounts and there isn't a single contradiction; all the descriptions are definitely of the same creature. Now it's not so easy to dismiss my claim as a made up story. I would say that can be classified as "evidence" of an alien. Not proof, since all we have is eyewitness accounts and prophesies, but definitely evidence.

This is a retarded analogy, and will you quit abusing the word "Evidence". It's people like you who warp the definitions like "theory", and make it impossible to have a decent debate.

First of all calling the bible (which I assume you're referring to) "reliable eyewitness accounts" is absolutely rediculous. We have no idea who wrote what, when and the whole thing has been, copied, translated and edited over TWO THOUSAND YEARS. People can't even agree what happened on 9/11 or who shot Kennedy, yet somehow the bible is a reliable historical document?

But let me humor your analogy. Even if we did have 10 of those perfect agreement eyewitnesses, all we would be left with is 10 people who saw "something, they interpreted as an alien". With no physical evidence, no footprints, no video, no DNA evidence we would have jack. It could have been a guy dressed as an alien for all we know. It doesn't qualify as "evidence" for anything but the fact 10 people saw something.

Your prophecy argument is even more stupid. Please enlighten us all what exactly the bible (or any other religious text) has correctly prophesized. And no vague Nostradamus crap please.

[Cane]

Pinchandroll, you said: "I would argue, however, that there is no evidence against a prime mover, while there is a wealth of evidence against the universe starting from nothing without outside influence."

The absence of evidence against something isn't a big point in its favor. There's an absence of evidence against enormous, invisible, undetectable reptiles imprisoned beneath the earth's crust. The burden is not on atheists to disprove God because the kind of ID designers believe in is by definition UNTESTABLE because he wants us to take it all on faith, right? Untestable theories are worthless. I can come up with an infinite variety of unprovable and unrefutable theories. Look up the Wikipedia entry on the church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Furthermore, that lofty phrase "a wealth of evidence" about how the universe didn't start from multiple simultaneous points of causation seems false. If not, I would like you to tell me where it is. What wealth of evidence? Where did you read about it?

You're using the number of adherents to the major religions (throughout history)as arguments for their veracity.

"First off, if we assume that God belongs to one of the major historical religions, there is overwhelmingly more evidence for the Judeo-Christian God than any other. There is, in turn, overhwhelmingly more evidence for an Islamic god or Greek gods than a giant space beetle. If there was a historical religion worshipping a giant space beetle complete with personal accounts that do not contradict each other as well as historical secular documents supporting their writings... then that might be more of an argument. As it stands however, there are plenty of writings concerning Jesus that contain verifiable names, locations, and events. Some people who knew Jesus personally, and many more who believed purely on faith suffered ostracization, discrimination, torture, imprisonment, and death for their beliefs."

Tell me what evidence you're talking about. You call the Bible a personal account? The various gospels weren't even written at the same time. The Bible is a compilation of religious writings, and the bible we have today is NOTHING like the one that was in (limited) circulation in the 8th century. I think there was a recent gospel or Dead Sea scroll discovered which described Judas as a hero who betrayed Christ because Christ asked him to. The gospels contradict each other. The Bible was rewritten periodically throughout history.

You talk about the people who knew Jesus personally as if the Bible were a documentary. The only proof you have that he exists is the Bible itself; by that logic, I have plenty of evidence that Frodo and Gandalf exist.

I could make an argument that there is overwhelming historical evidence that disease is caused by spirits and humors and the wrath of God, because for many thousands of years human medicine believed such things. Who cares what the majority of humanity has believed for the majority of existence? That's not evidence for squat. They were wrong about medicine, heliocentrism, the geometry of the earth, the location of India. What you're arguing boils down to "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong."

[Pinchandroll]

a) That's not necessarily true. Pre-Big Bang theories of the universe exist in modern studies of cosmology, astronomy, and physics. Generally speaking, it is believed that the universe existed as a singularity -- a tiny point with near-infinite mass -- that exploded into the foundations of what are now the universe. Some scientists believe the expansion is destined to continue forever. Some believe that the universe is undergoing a cycle: that it will expand, then steadily condense back into another singularity, then repeat itself. Furthermore, they believe this cycle has probably already happened numerous times. At any rate, there is a TON of science being done to try to figure out the origins of the pre-Big Bang universe, and I suggest you educate yourself about it before dismissing it with the wave of a hand.

I'm in no way lightly dismissing the efforts that scientists are putting into deciphering the origin of the universe. I just feel that my faith is well placed and I feel much more confident believing God is behind the origin of the universe than believing that a) the universe has always existed without an origin or b) there was nothing, then there was something, and we just haven't figured out why yet.

I realize that thinking about what happened before the singularity, before the Big Bang, and "before the before" is a frustrating thought exercise. But just because we can't comprehend what that state was like, or how the beginning began, doesn't mean we should give up and call the starting point of all incomprehensibility "God." "God" should not be a stopgap measure we invent at the boundary where our understanding fails and our ignorance begins.

I wouldn't say I am giving up and labelling the things I can't comprehend "God." In fact, I think I'm doing just the opposite - I can't find a single reason to believe that science will somehow provide an explanation or establish a law that can account for the origin of all things. Believe me, I'm not using God as a cop-out for answering questions that I can't answer. I do, however, feel that human understanding is like a puzzle, and no matter how many pieces science is able to fit together, it will always be missing the most important piece, and that is where God fits. I do believe science is on the right track towards figuring things out, and if we had infinite time available, we could theoretically find every universal law. That being said, I think that even if there is some point in the future where we have found every law of the universe and we know all there possibly is to know about how things work, we will won't have an explanation for how everything came into being, or where was the universe infinite years ago. Really, I can see science answering pretty much any other question except when it comes to origins.

b) The whole "we don't understand this; therefore we can't understand it; therefore it's God's work" line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

I agree somewhat. I don't understand a lot of things, but I believe everything is God's work, even the things I understand. There are tons of things that science can't explain, but I'm not just dismissing them as "oh, is just God being mysterious, science can't answer this question." However, I think science is going to hit a dead end when it tries to explain what happened... before everything. I can't even wrap my head around it, true, but just because I don't understand it doesn't mean I'm disregarding it and using God as an all-inclusive answer.

Every year we uncover hundreds to thousands of things previously thought unknown, unthinkable, or impossible. Hell, if you were to go back in time even 100 years and show people a modern-day iPod, they'd freak out and think it was Satan's work. The point is, "irreducible complexity" is a fallacious theory at its core. Just because we don't understand something today doesn't mean we can't ever figure it out. (Nevermind the fact that everything ID advocates have claimed was "irreducibly complex" has already been figured out)

I think you are really generalizing the mindset of people from 100 years ago, and besides, I don't think the small percentage of religious people who would blame an iPod on Satan proves anything. There are always going to be close-minded people, and there are always going to be people who are scared of things they don't understand. I don't think I would be the type to call a modern invention Satan's work if I lived 100 years ago, anyways. As for 'everything ID advocates have claimed was "irreducibly complex,"' it doesn't apply the origin of the universe, which is the only point I have argued, so I don't think it has any bearing on any of my statements, unless you can cite an example of some discovery that should be impossible under modern laws of science.