Ben Stein Expelled

[Kaosu]

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

I can believe. I will believe when I am given just reason to.

Jeremy Clarkson comes pretty close for Motoring Journalist God.

[Tea on tuesday]

I'm actually partial to James May.

You could call me a Mayist.

[Gecko]

Originally Posted by Schatze

Yes, I don't get science at all. I've been pulling off a clever ruse in academia for years. By the way, masters in science, what field?

If you are in science, you know much of it is solely a clever ruse and the propagation of rubbish. Most scientists sadly are sheep. Physics, btw, not that it matters.

I do love your fence sitting, though, it's remarkable. In one paragraph you've stated that you recognize that evolution is a solid theory (I'd say one of the most solid theories to arise in science to date), that it IS a problem that people who have been inculcated as Christians (or any other religion) have a knee jerk aversive reaction to a scientific theory. You then go on to draw some sort of false equivalence between creationists and those who are not creationists, and then throw in the typical "evangelizing evolution" and "hate" religion lines I've seen posted hundreds of times in these sorts of discussions

There is no fence sitting. I accept evolution as a good and valid theory that has been proven. I do not accept the addendums and positioning of those who have an agenda, nor comprehend the in depth theory, and try to make it something it is not.

So, let me get this straight. Evolutionary theory, or any of its revised variations, Darwin's theories --> neo-Darwinian synthesis, are factual systematic descriptions of the real world. And those who erroneously reject evolutionary theory based on religious grounds are wrong.

Thats just it. Some are good, some are complete crap. Much is misunderstood and of course changing. Arguing the paths of allele's for speciation is good. Proclaiming we all arrived from a single cell organism as is done is bullshit.

Yet it's not alright to call these individuals on this issue. Why? Why do they deserve special protection from being called out on holding what meets all the psychological criteria of an illusory belief or even a delusion? If you do call these ID'rs or creationists on what, quite frankly, is in my opinion a delusion by all clinical criteria (I would consider it part of a maladaptive pathology), you're evangelizing and spreading evolutionary religion?

The problem isn't calling out fringe elements, it's identifying radical elements on both sides. I disagree with young earth creationists, I always have. However, I equally detest those who try to pretend science has the answers and posit things that are not in the realm of science as such. You at the same time probably cheer Dawkins agenda, even though it's just as bad as the YACs.

What? You've just conflated religion with a materialist scientific theory? What? How do you evangelize a scientific theory? Of course, you're just trying to draw a false equivalency between two groups, by twisting the meanings of words, with which you have overlapping beliefs, to somehow justify your personal beliefs by placing yourself within two extremes on a non-existent bipolar scale.

Arguably the worlds leading Evolutionary Biologist does just that, or do you disagree that Dawkins tries to overlap science to evangelize atheism.
It's part of the problem, in that evolution to many not in science is represented often times to be something it is not, nor what Charles Darwin represented.

I do love the fact you use the exact same apologetics that I see almost every single Christian who is not a creationist use, as a means to both distance yourself from your whack job fringe and at the same time excoriate those who deride the same whack job fringe, and position yourself in the "center" as if that were some sort of bulwark or aegis. The only other people I see who say the exact same things, verbatim, are Americans who were raised in a part of the country where criticizing religion is culturally taboo. If you do not fit either of those categories, I'll be shocked and simply label you a disingenuous placating coward.

I prefer the term seeker of truth. I'm from California and I grew up arguing in school against Jesuits about everything, including that religon was silliness.

While you're entitled to your opinion, mine is your life is in a simple vacuum without the overall big picture in mind. I've seen it before from inexperienced people with answers who have not journeyed much in life and think their simple logic in regards to things has the answer to everything, when comically they can't even comprehend their own sentience, or the meaning of it.

Fortunately, I'm from somewhere where creationists are a tiny, oft made fun of, minority. Where religion is a private thing, that, when aired in public, is no longer a private personal matter and is therefore no longer protected from criticism. So I feel no need to adhere to your societal norms, thanks. Also, I'll take the time to point out that my criticisms were directed solely at Christians who were also creationists. I don't really care if anyone has theistic beliefs, I've interacted with nuns, priests, etc., outside of a religious setting (Catholic university) and find at least Catholic priests/nuns to be incredibly intelligent and interesting and compassionate people, every one I've met. But even the nuns/priests don't bring up religion in every day interactions, nor at non-religious public functions, nor do they try to interfere in politics of the university etc. etc. But since they all tend to at least have advanced degrees (nuns master's at the least, priests one or more doctorates), and are at a university, they also have no problem whatsoever with science, even in areas where technically they're supposed to (condoms, birth control *gasp*). Catholics here are pretty good at that; most of our elected officials are also Catholics.

Yet most of your posts disrespect and attack these people you say you somewhat respect, lumping them together. The YACs are not the average Christian. You also fail to see that science should go above the fray, stick to the scientific method, and ignore the 'fracas' that you blame on Christians, but is equally an issue due to the 'religon' being propagated by many in science, who have an agenda, instead of being pure scientists.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Kaosu

Didn't lose me, a shame though I'm not really all that big into cognitive/neural mechanics.

Question. Whats your faith and why do you believe it?

A simple, but straight to the point question.

And thus deserving of a simple, but straight to the point answer. I would consider myself a skeptic Christian. I think most of the major religions of the world have twisted the true message of religion to something they can use to gain/hold power. It has happed ever since the beginning of civilization, and unfortunately it continues to this day. I prefer to rely on my own conscience and own interpretation of what is important and what is not.

I believe in God for the reasons I outlined in my previous post. I am not so arrogant to believe that humans are the highest form of intelligence in the universe. There is something out there and it is trying very damn hard to get our attention.

Why do I believe in Christianity? Because Jesus was a real person and accomplished truly miraculous things. I am not talking about all the supposed magic he performed (i.e. healing lepers, lemming pigs). Removing all the mysticism from his life, the world literally changed after he was born. He was not a great ruler with the might of an empire to back him up, however billions of people continue to this day to follow his teachings. I am sure someone will invoke the might of the Roman empire as the cause of Christianity today. Well at first the Romans did everything they could to stomp out Christianity but could not. Instead, this dead wandering desert hippy conquered the Roman empire and all other empires after through his teaching alone. I think that alone is deserving of the respect of all people everywhere. The fact that if we actually followed his teachings, it would lead us to an enlightened Utopia, is deserving of worship.

Originally Posted by Tea on tuesday

Do you apply the same skepticism to all other sciences that heavily rely on indirect data? If so, on what epistemological grounds?

I am not a philosopher so I will give a straightforward answer. Because all humans everywhere should be skeptical of everything they are told. We should use our thinking organ, that is what it is there for. Posting on the internet has probably taught most of us to be better skeptics.

I can only speak for myself, but from past discussions I think my views are closely aligned with other atheists here. Evolution is not proof that God doesn't exists, and while it's entirely possible I've missed it, I've not seen anyone arguing that point. This thread has developed largely into an attack on ID, which is an untenable position.

You start from the position of atheism and therefore accept evolution in its entirety because there is no other explanation. I start from the position of theism and accept parts of evolution as they are proven by empirical data. Which is the more scientific?

Look hard for the outright scoffing that many have done in this thread and all others when it comes to religion. Atheists disdain religion and point to evolution as the only means by which all life on Earth exists.

And those changes are kept and discarded through a non-random process. When a non-random selector is applied to a random data stream then the results will be non-random. Suppose I wrote a program that randomly selected 5,000 letters simultaneously and then randomly changed 1 letter every second thereafter. If through this process I happened to churn out the first 5,000 letters of Twelfth Night then that would be random. If I apply a filter that selects and protects "correct" letters so that I will eventually end up with the first 5,000 letters of twelfth night then my eventual result is non-random based on the terms of filter.

Of course evolution is much more complicated, but to claim that statement is "startlingly illogical" is ignorant.

Stop trying to say that evolution is not random. NATURAL SELECTION is not random, but all the variations upon which this filter is applied are produced by randomness. Therefore, the process by which things evolve is random; the process by which they survive to reproduce is not random.

You're again ignoring the second process of evolution. Mass extinctions are followed by mass diversifications as life working through evolutionary processes quickly begins to fill in the niches vacated by previously dominant organisms.


1) I don't understand your math.
2) Non-random filter.

Mass diversification from a single organism with a certain number of alleles. Changing these alleles and thus changing the organism to other organisms takes time. If you have a smaller amount of alleles to start from it takes more time to produce other variations of them, thus reducing the amount of time evolution has to produce all the organisms today.

I can believe. I will believe when I am given just reason to.

Asking God to prove Himself to you is a big no-no. Who are we to ask God to act like a trick pony and do a show for us before we believe in Him? I would prefer to be humble and say that He has done enough to earn my belief.

[Zehn - Vhex]

So have we concluded whether or not God exists yet or are we still just sharing personal philosophies on the nature of the universe?

[Arakkis]

Haven't you checked Fox News today? Jesus came back and is doing a Broadway number in Times Square tonight. He is quoted as saying, "I respect the stage hand strike and wish them the best, but our cherubs and angels and shit are non-union."

[Zerai]

You start from the position of atheism and therefore accept evolution in its entirety because there is no other explanation. I start from the position of theism and accept parts of evolution as they are proven by empirical data. Which is the more scientific?

No. I start from a position of this is what we know so far, and I know it's not 100% accurate. So I leave the gaps as gaps, accept them as gaps and look for the right answers. You fill your gaps with "God did it". Now which is more scientific?

And yes, that was meant as a rhetorical response because of the poorly worded attack you wrote.

As for your "we are not the highest living life form" jump to a God is something curious to me. I fully agree that I highly doubt we are the best and the brightest in the universe, but to jump to a God? That's a pretty big gap.

Personally, I see an asteroid with some of the building blocks of life on it as infinitely more likely than a God.

There is something out there and it is trying very damn hard to get our attention.

If this is it's trying very hard, I'd hate to see it not trying...

[Warrik]

This thread is great. Its chock full of all sorts of folks who have know the answers to mans greatest mysteries.

[Schatze]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

I am sorry if I get so technical in the following paragraphs that I lose a lot of folks. Schatze has flexed his science epeen and I must flex mine right back.

If you think invoking a pathway that I am intimately familiar with is going to phase me, you have another thing coming. The neuronal circuitry that allows vision has been elegantly elucidated by multiple experiments including microelectrode stimulation of individual neuronal cells, inactivation of voltage gated ion channels using tetrodotoxin and other neurotoxins, knockoutexperiments in mice where the genes of different receptors were removed, and all the subsequent observations both upstream and downstream that these stimuli cause that have been DIRECTLY measured using various techniques (e.g. microelectrodes). If, several hundred years from now (this isan arbitrary estimation) evolutionary biologists have assembled a body of evidence from DIRECT observations as profound as the one above, I would call evolution as the origin of all species proven.

You missed my point. Entirely. I was referring to another poster who was trying to distort the meaning of "observe" to suit his or her agenda. The reason why I gave a brief explanation of the beginnings of coding/encoding in the various layers of the retina was to give a brief glimpse at just how indirect our sensory percepts are from the actual physical stimulus that evoked that sensory percept. My point was, that using his definition of "observe", "observe" becomes a meaningless word because it is impossible. Yes, the response curves for erythrolabe, cyanolabe, and chlorolabe are extremely congruent with psychophysical measurements and threshold testing, but by using the definition of "observe" he was using we do not "observe" anything, least of all our most basic sensory input due to how "indirect" the entire process is. And that doesn't touch V1 and the farming off of processing and reassembly that occurs which is even more indirect..

But science has not done that. Through a variety of experiments, science has proven that there is an evolutionary force acting through random genetic mutation within the framework of natural selection. This is a fantastic beginning, but atheists have invoked this as proof that all religion is false and that the ignorant unwashed masses that continue to cling to these outdated concepts are worthy of scorn and ridicule. Fuck that. This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom and attacks on this basic tenet of our country is trying to move this country closer to persecution for religious beliefs. On the other hand, those proponents of right wing evangelical Christianity that will not listen to any alternative to an Earth created in 7 days about 12,000 years ago continue to give hard line atheists something to point to and declare that there are no intelligent religious people. I think the extreme of both sides are equally ignorant, close minded, and despicable.

No atheist has claimed religion is false because evolution is true. That's what a *ton* of theists claim, purport to make the case, yet I've yet to see one person who says "evolution true therefore religion false". I do see tons of religious people attack evolution or outright deny it (ID'rs, creationists, et. al.) because they think it undermines their religion.

This is so startlingly illogical it amazes me. Evolution CAN ONLY ACT THROUGH RANDOM MUTATIONS. Unless, of course, you are saying that there is an intelligent changer running around improving animals. Hell, even I can't buy into that and I am pretty open minded.

Actually, it's not illogical; it's precisely the logic behind evolutionary algorithms. While the mutations themselves are random, the field space for possible solutions as defined by biological soundness and "survival of the fittest" is finite. Evolution is not random. Sorry.

It is called a population bottleneck. While isolation of a breeding population may result in a speciation event (i.e. allopatric speciation), a world wide bottleneck would render a majority of species extinct, thus reducing the variability of all organisms. It has been sometime since I have looked at the mathematics of evolution, but if you reduce the total amount of all alleles on Earth I am pretty sure that reduces the opportunities for genetic drift to act upon them.

Evolution is not directional, nor progressive, in a general sense. However, when you have mass extinctions, you also have paradigm shifts. Mass extinctions are not detrimental at all to evolution in any sense of the word. However, if you're talking about increasing variation, they can also serve to wipe the board clean of all but the most robust creatures. Do you honestly think the age of mammals would have occurred without first the extinction of the dinosaurs?

With an estimated Earth age of 4.55 billion years, that leaves about 1 billion years for every single species ever to have been developed through random chance. This just gives random variability less time to produce the intricate mechanisms that make life possible, thus proving my point further.

Not really. It just shows that the hardest step was having single celled organisms begin to be able to congregate and produce a singular organism. Once this occurred, evolution went crazy, and has ever since. Once you solve the problem of having cells cooperate, it really is just a matter of small genetic shifts over a billion years to produce what is around today.

I have NEVER said I don't believe in evolution nor have I claimed that there is false evidence of evolution. You are assigning to me traits you assume must be present in anyone so ignorant as to believe in the possibility of God. You need to take a long hard look at your preconceived prejudices coupled with your amazingly closed mind. It is sad that intelligent people can be so ignorant.

If you believe in ID, you believe in a god. The only way the intelligent design paradox can be explained is by a supernatural creator.

Why can't you believe that there is something more intelligent and complex than human beings? If we are the best that this universe can do I am not impressed.

Where did these intelligent and complex beings come from in the first place? If they're not god, than it was just as improbable that these intelligent and complex beings would have arisen as humans. Therefore, not only haven't you solved the problem, you've made it even more complex and implausible. Unless you posit a God-like being. Which is why ID is nothing more than creationism in different clothes.

edit

Originally Posted by Gecko

I am a creationist/ID'r.

Well, no point continuing than. You should have just said so instead of throwing up a bunch of words that = obfuscation.

edit2: Just to clarify, again, I'm specifically referring to anti-intellectualism in the form creationists (or ID'rs as they like to call themselves now). Somehow people keep on assuming that disbelief in evolution is a requisite characteristic of a theist, or that if you believe in evolution you hate all theists. No. Just creationists. And I don't hate them, merely think they're harmfully ignorant and frankly delusional.

[mek]

Originally Posted by Millie

The Bible as "eyewitness testimony?" How is that any more reliable than some ancient Greek person's "eyewitness testimony" that Poseidon sank his ship at sea, or that Apollo gave his crops a good year?

Bingo. There's actually probably a ton more "evidence" (by Pinchandroll's definition) of the Greek or Roman gods than the Biblical god, by far. The Greeks actually frequently mixed their histories with their mythologies, to the point that fictional characters and Gods would be included in histories as if they really existed and were the cause of events (Trojan War is the obvious pop-culture example, but also see Herodotus). Now there's "eyewitness testimony" for you.

Pinchandroll's arguments are definitely worth examining though, because they are exactly what lies at the heart of Intelligent Design: debase the discussion by subtly altering the definition of some basic word (like "theory" or "evidence" ) and then use that definition to argue out to "it's logical to assume the Biblical God exists." If you give them an inch, they take a mile. Of course, if you're not an idiot, you'll see where they went wrong, but even the extremely intelligent sometimes fail to recognize this sleight of hand and start discussing it in a serious, scientific manner (see walls of text above).

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Schatze

edit2: Just to clarify, again, I'm specifically referring to anti-intellectualism in the form creationists (or ID'rs as they like to call themselves now). Somehow people keep on assuming that disbelief in evolution is a requisite characteristic of a theist, or that if you believe in evolution you hate all theists. No. Just creationists. And I don't hate them, merely think they're harmfully ignorant and frankly delusional.

No point in dissecting your post line by line with this gem. You are very clearly calling anyone who gives any credence to the idea of a higher being having a hand in the beginning of the universe a moron. Grats on your bigotry. You are clearly beyond having a reasonable discussion with.

[Cane]

Speaking of very clearly, Arrakis, I think Schatze very clearly said "specifically ... referring to creationists ... (or IDr's)" It's funny that you think that he is "very clearly calling anyone who gives any credence to the idea of a higher being having a hand in the beginning of the universe a moron."

Did you read what he wrote? "Creationists" and "IDr's" refers to people who believe very specific theories related to the origin of the earth and organisms. I missed the part where he condemned anyone who gives any credence to blah blah blah. I think you made that up so that you could pronounce him impossible to have a discussion with, which is a neat tactic for when you have no arguments left to make.

You call yourself a skeptic Christian, and you say:
"I start from the position of theism and accept parts of evolution as they are proven by empirical data. Which is the more scientific?"

Unless Christ came to your first birthday, sang you a song, and burned "JESUS WAS HERE" on your lawn with his laser vision, you're not a skeptic Christian. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, Jesus was resurrected, etc., you are taking those things on faith.

"Starting from a position of theism" is not the-same-but-different from atheism. Rather than disbelief and skepticism, you are taking on faith the following: God exists, does magic from time to time, wants us to go to his clubhouse on weekends. None of these things has been proven. What skepticism are you referring to?

What are the wild assertions that evolutionists take on faith? Do they sound as batshit insane as the miracles and resurrections and fairy tales that have been the stock-in-trade of religions since religion was invented? I understand that common sense isn't the same to everyone, but aren't you self-conscious about arguing that every religion in history has been wrong except for yours? Have some humility. Scientology says the same things about you, you know.

If I thought you were sincere about the skepticism, I'd applaud you, but I think it's a stunt.

[Kaosu]

Originally Posted by Schatze

If you believe in ID, you believe in a god. The only way the intelligent design paradox can be explained is by a supernatural creator.

ID'ers who believe in God blackboxes obviously promote a higher power than ourselves. No problem there.

I don't have a problem with that; its when people use it to promote their own religion, as if it proves the existence of their own god and denies everyone else their own piece of the pie.

However, to more specifically respond to the quote: Aliens motherfucker. Aliens. Not the one with crazy shit spitting up more crazy shit from their mouth(s). Or the crazy one with the were pulse laser beams of three dot deaths.

But ones who decided to stroll to our little cozy planet, take a shit, chalk full of infinitely more complex organisms, dump it into our oceans, then went about their merry way. No one needs a designer when a infinitely more complex lifeform decides to breath on a planet, giving birth to other lifeforms.

We are the single cell organisms/bacteria of aliens. Earth is simply the Petri (sp?) dish.

Partly serious, partly joking. Mostly alternative but highly unaccepted trains of thought in most circles.

[Zuuljin]

Thats entirely possible. Seriously though, you bring up a good point, but I'd like to point out a subtle difference between ID and evolution. Aliens should fall under ID, since we were placed here by a higher being like you said, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a follower of ID that would say thats equally as likely as God creating us.

The subtle point I want to make, is that ID is more of history, and evolution is more of a science. While yes science is attempting to find out how life began on earth, its goal is more broad. It wants to know how life arose in general. Not just on earth, but in any setting. We know earth, we live here, so thats what we use as evidence.

ID deals simply with the question "How did life arise on Earth." So aliens took a shit and we grew up. God waved his giant E-peen and we all came rushing out. Thats great, but thats history. That tells us absolutely nothing about how life works, and begs the question "How did the aliens first begin life?" or "How big was God's e-peen?"

A great example of this would be the Euler-Miller experiment (I think it was). This was an experiment to see if simple building blocks of life could be created from non-life. They succeeded, but theists always point out that "That study is BS because we know that the earth was different back then than what they thought at the time." This shows my point that theists are thinking simply of "on earth" and not in general. It doesn't matter if they formed life out of a condom and sandpaper burned in a fire. What matters is that basic life came from non-life objects. If we ever found a condom/sandpaper/fire planet, we'd perhaps find life. This is science. Trying to find out how life started only earth is history.


My shitty analogy would be the creation of computers. If you asked an ID minded person how computers came to be today, they would say they were created by smart scientists, who every year came up with better ways to make them, until we arrive where we're at today. History.

If you asked an evolutionary minded person how computers came to be today, they would tell you that they were created using vacuum tubes and logic gates, which led to using transistors and memory states etc etc (not a historian on computers, you get the idea). Science.

The idea here is that ID simply tells you "Some guy made it", and evolution tells you "how" that guy made it. Evolution is also not mutually exclusive with "a creator". How do we know that God didn't just start the whole thing rolling, which is another silly reason religious folk cant accept evolution.

[Dumar]

this is ridiculous.. another thread again.

do you people know that there are things in science that cannot be proven but exist?

science is a tool. that's all it is. a hammer, a compass, and a plunger are tools too.