Ben Stein Expelled

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

There should be a more solid middle ground here. I don't think intelligent design should be taught in schools because it's religion, but I also don't think schools should teach Darwinian evolution because it's really bad science.

I dunno about all that, but maybe NOT FIRING professors for exploring darwinian heuristics is a good start. It's cool if you wanna drag creationists out into the alley and beat them to death with a trilobyte fossil, I'd be all over that. But maybe we shouldn't be going around repudiating every biologist who questions the theories of a man who didn't even know about CELLS in his lifetime.

[Angerz]

Originally Posted by Millie

..., or freaking Quetzalcoatl.

I'd subscribe to that newsletter.

[Goltana_R-Zek]

I dunno, I tend to lean towards the fact that we started to settle down with the recession of the Ice Age, during the Neolithic/'New Stone' Age. The radical climate shift allowed for the domestication of animals, manageable food production, and the knowledge of agriculture. The Fertile Crescent allowed people to harvest crops, learning to store it for other seasons when it was more scarce etc. I don't really see religion/spirituality as being the reason we became a sedentary society.

As for the film, I'm not really positive whether or not he's advocating ID itself (although I think he is), but he certainly is showing the Scientific community shuns the discussion of ID. Yet I think it's the right course of action, because whether you believe in ID or not isn't a scientific question, but a theological one. You can't base the belief in any evidence or show in anyway the ID is infact true, you believe it or you don't.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

theories shouldnt be taught as fact is what Ancient is saying.

Darwinism is never taught as fact. At least never by any serious scientist I've ever heard of. It's called the "Theory" of evolution for a reason. The reason is that it's not a provable fact. I don't think anyone in the serious scientific or educational community has ever claimed otherwise.

Now, is it the best theory we have so far? I think so. It's the most provable of any theory that's been proposed to date. It's not proven, hence the designation "theory." But it's been replicated in labs, observed in fossil records, etc. It's about as close to proven as it can be without being 100% proven.

I think there is a misconception among the evangelical community that natural selection is taught in schools as undisputable fact, and that it's forced down kids' throats, etc. Much to the contrary. It's always referred to as a "theory," and any responsible science teacher will at least pay lip service to the alternatives.

Personally speaking, my biology teacher always taught it as thus: "This is a theory. It's not proven, and you should be aware there are other schools of thought, such as creationism, creationist-darwinism, etc. Whichever one you want to believe in is up to you. But because this is a biology class, I am going to teach evolution."

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Goltana_R-Zek

I dunno, I tend to lean towards the fact that we started to settle down with the recession of the Ice Age, during the Neolithic/'New Stone' Age. The radical climate shift allowed for the domestication of animals, manageable food production, and the knowledge of agriculture. The Fertile Crescent allowed people to harvest crops, learning to store it for other seasons when it was more scarce etc. I don't really see religion/spirituality as being the reason we became a sedentary society..

I never said religion is "the reason" we became civilized. I said it went part and parcel with our becoming civilized. And all evidence suggests that it did. And frankly, I took great pains to use the word "spirituality" when describing early humanity, because "religion" and "spirituality" should not be conflated. Spirituality is a broader category into which something like religion fits. Religion is a type of spirituality; it is not the only type.

[Zerai]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

theories shouldnt be taught as fact is what Ancient is saying.

I don't know what schools you went to but all my textbooks and all references say The Theory of Evolution. And not the stupid crap that cropped up in uh, texas or whatever where they put the stickers saying "Evolution is still a theory", it's just the name. It's not "The Law of Evolution".

Teaching it to kids is still miles and miles and lightyears beyond teaching ID though. Evolution has a lot more references than one book from a couple thousand years ago. Which has been changed a million times. So in other words has absolutely nothing going for it.

edit

Personally speaking, my biology teacher always taught it as thus: "This is a theory. It's not proven, and you should be aware there are other schools of thought, such as creationism, creationist-darwinism, etc. Whichever one you want to believe in is up to you. But because this is a biology class, I am going to teach evolution."

Glad none of my biology teachers ever even mentioned anything religious. They shouldn't even have to pay it lip service. I don't expect any pastor to have to pay lip service to evolution either.

[The Ancient]

After some thought I decided to reverse my position. The problem that I was mentioning is that classic Darwinian natural selection is a little too simplistic an explanation for the origin of species and that kids should be taught more than monkey goes to caveman goes to human. Thinking again about it, it's a good start until an individual with interest wants to explore further on their own. After all, when I was really young they taught me that Columbus discovered America. Sometimes it's just easier to broach the subject with half-truths.

[lendarios]

Originally Posted by Millie

Early fossil records indicate that ritualized burial was one of humanity's first steps toward separating itself from the animals. Before we harnessed fire, before we invented the wheel, before we fashioned the first spear, we were burying and revering our dead in a ritualistic fashion. We were also carving wooden or stone idols to bury with or among the dead.

Furthermore, the earliest cave paintings were not, as typically suspected, just hunting motifs. They were primitive spiritual depictions of the world. Again, from fossil records and excavations, we've seen that the earliest human settlements were centered around proto-houses of worship. Not the "churches" we think of today, but more like shamanic circles or priest's chambers.

The reason I say it's "debatable" if we'd have ever settled down without spirituality is because we don't know. We did settle down as spiritual people, and we have plenty of evidence to prove that. But since we'll never know if we could have settled down without spirituality, the matter is "debatable."

Not as much debatable as eating meat was what made humanity settle down.
You are again confusing correlation with causation.
Correlation does not imply causation, remember that. Just because spiritualism is present on human beings, does not means its the cause for settling down.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by lendarios

Not as much debatable as eating meat was what made humanity settle down.
You are again confusing correlation with causation.
Correlation does not imply causation, remember that. Just because spiritualism is present on human beings, does not means its the cause for settling down.

No, I'm not confusing causation with correlation, because I never said that religion caused humanity to civilize. I said it was heavily correlated. Please read what I wrote more carefully before attacking it on false grounds.

[faithdies]

Even if Spirituality did help us civilize, it's time to abandon it as we do things we no longer need. Religion basically existed for the sole reason that life sucked and people needed to feel there were going someplace better. All religion does now is drive people apart anymore.

As for intelligent design...if there was actually a shred of science to back it up, maybe it would start to get accepted by academia. I think the whole "There has to be a God because this is TOO COMPLICATED! WTFOMG!" isn't providing enough facts for serious academic review.

[Millie]

I think there is still some value to religion, but just not in the field of logical or scientific inquiry.

What is the value of religion? Frankly, religion (in general; not talking about wacko fundamentalism) helps provide a moral framework for society, and helps keep people civil. If someone believes he is answering to a higher authority at the end of his life, he's inclined to behave civilly and respecfully toward others. (Of course, it's certainly possible for people to do this without religion; I'm just saying that religion certainly helps a lot of people in this regard).

It's only when religion runs amok that I have a problem with it. Please note that I'd also have a problem with science running amok -- as it did under the Nazi regime with its barbaric "experiments" on human subjects.

Religion has its place, and science has its place. I just think they should be kept separate and in proper/healthy perspective.

[Mistii]

yeah ben stein doesn't sound quite as intelligent to me as he used to.

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly and Ben Stein on Intelligent Design

[SalaciousTunare]

Originally Posted by Millie

Again, from fossil records and excavations, we've seen that the earliest human settlements were centered around proto-houses of worship. Not the "churches" we think of today, but more like shamanic circles or priest's chambers.

Wait what?

Your definition of civilization is off I think... The first civilization was in Mesopotamia or modern day Iraq. The civilization arose as a direct result of agriculture not religion. It was the first time primitive man was able to work a fertile land which allowed man to shed his nomadic ways.

[faithdies]

Originally Posted by Millie

I think there is still some value to religion, but just not in the field of logical or scientific inquiry.

What is the value of religion? Frankly, religion (in general; not talking about wacko fundamentalism) helps provide a moral framework for society, and helps keep people civil. If someone believes he is answering to a higher authority at the end of his life, he's inclined to behave civilly and respecfully toward others. (Of course, it's certainly possible for people to do this without religion; I'm just saying that religion certainly helps a lot of people in this regard).

It's only when religion runs amok that I have a problem with it. Please note that I'd also have a problem with science running amok -- as it did under the Nazi regime with its barbaric "experiments" on human subjects.

Religion has its place, and science has its place. I just think they should be kept separate and in proper/healthy perspective.

Interestingly enough, recent studies show that more crimes are commited in America by Religious people.

Once again, in the past religion was good because it provided moral laws in a way where people felt they needed to police themselves. They didn't have a governmental body that was able to enforce laws and protect the general populous. We do now. Once again, it has outlived it usefulness in this area as well.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by SalaciousTunare

Wait what?

Your definition of civilization is off I think... The first civilization was in Mesopotamia or modern day Iraq. The civilization arose as a direct result of agriculture not religion. It was the first time primitive man was able to work a fertile land which allowed man to shed his nomadic ways.

For the third and last freaking time on this thread, I'm going to reiterate that I never said spirituality/religion was the sole cause, or even the direct cause, of civilization. I said it was a factor. I never said it was "the" factor.

Jesus Christ (no pun intended). I wish people would stop and take a second to read what they're responding to before firing off their responses.