Ben Stein Expelled

[Nanaki Ikanan]

Even growing up in school (mostly 7-10th grade or so) I was always sort of frustrated by the fact that the schools ONLY taught The Theory of Evolution, and no opposing theories or beliefs.

When something is just a Theory, and it's not proven, why can't we learn about other viewpoints as well? While science text-books do indeed make sure to call Evolution a Theory, they certainly don't make any mention of any other theories or possibilities. That's what bothers me about it. When only one Theory is taught, with no mention of anything else at all, it is basically being taught as fact, I don't care if they tack the Theory word on or not.

I guess I just always felt things would seem a little more balanced if they would teach opposing views. Text-books might call it The Theory of Evolution, but other than tacking the Theory word on, it's pretty much taught as 100% fact, because there's nothing to counter it with.

Of course, I think any teaching that only teaches one side of the story is pretty shoddy. A lot of history books only teach one side of the story, and I hated those classes too.

[Zerai]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

So have teachers in the science classrooms say "It's not a scientific theory; it's a belief system with no basis whatsoever in scientific methodology or principles of rational inquiry." after the lecture on Intelligent Design. Problem solved.

I only say this, as the Science class seems to be the only real fitting place in the current curriculum of elementary/middle/high school classes to actually introduce the theory in (given it already is discussing 'how the earth was created' and what not). Maybe the public schools in your area currently have religion/philosophy classes that the presentation of said theory would be more fitting in, but here in the Bible Belt our public schools (ironically) don't.

There really is no place for religious studies in anything outside of high school, due to timetables more than anything, but frankly, Science class is the last class you'd ever want to introduce it in. Maybe a humanities. History or English? They already teach a fair amount of fiction (History in the form of theories about past figures lives).

But wasting time in Science when our society is already falling behind is a terrible idea. I'm sorry about your beliefs, but ID is crap. It has no factual basis in anything at all and is a completely fictional story. As said above, it'd be like teaching The Silmarillion in Science. Hey, it's a creationist story, it's about as believable. We're just the fourth age, after everyone has crossed the Sea. Then we'll end up like those useless as fuck cartographers in EQ who missed entire continents. Oh hey, there is a continent over here..oh wait..another one here too!

[Azrayne]

My impression was that evolution was more or less taught as fact because it's the only scientifically viable theory that exists right now.

I mean ID isn't a scientific theory, it's basically just saying 'yeah god did it.' If there was some reason to believe there was some kind of validity to creationist theories people would be willing to consider them, but when all of your evidence comes out of a 2000+ year old book, you really don't have much ground to stand on.

[Zerai]

Originally Posted by Nanaki Ikanan

Even growing up in school (mostly 7-10th grade or so) I was always sort of frustrated by the fact that the schools ONLY taught The Theory of Evolution, and no opposing theories or beliefs.

I agree, but that's the problem. There is nothing else. And believe me there are tons of scientists out there looking for something. All that happens is they modify the theory of evolution to update the current research.

Says something about the strength of Evolution if you ask me. If the best counter they got to it is an invisible man in the sky did it.

[The Ancient]

.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Millie

Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. The sooner everyone agrees to keep the two in separate buckets, the better off everyone will be.

But they're leaky buckets!

Are physicists getting in trouble for believing in the Anthropic Principle nowadays? That isn't even a theory.

[tad10]

I'll have to watch this on DVD. I always liked Ben Stein.

[lendarios]

Originally Posted by millie

I'm not saying that religion has no place in the world. In fact, I'd say that religion has accomplished far more good than bad in the course of human history. It's debatable that humanity ever would have settled down and civilized had it not been for spirituality and organized religion.

By reading this paragraph is it implied that you equate religion with the settling down of human population.
If that was not your intent then i suggest you go over the way you wrote the paragraph, since more that one individual has come to the same conclusion by reading it.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Nanaki Ikanan

Even growing up in school (mostly 7-10th grade or so) I was always sort of frustrated by the fact that the schools ONLY taught The Theory of Evolution, and no opposing theories or beliefs.

When something is just a Theory, and it's not proven, why can't we learn about other viewpoints as well? While science text-books do indeed make sure to call Evolution a Theory, they certainly don't make any mention of any other theories or possibilities. That's what bothers me about it. When only one Theory is taught, with no mention of anything else at all, it is basically being taught as fact, I don't care if they tack the Theory word on or not.

I guess I just always felt things would seem a little more balanced if they would teach opposing views. Text-books might call it The Theory of Evolution, but other than tacking the Theory word on, it's pretty much taught as 100% fact, because there's nothing to counter it with.

Of course, I think any teaching that only teaches one side of the story is pretty shoddy. A lot of history books only teach one side of the story, and I hated those classes too.

Teach what else exactly? There's no competing theories to evolution with the slightest bit of evidence to support them. All creationists can do is point to the tiny gaps in our understanding of the universe and declare the void to be the work of God. Pointing to a creator is not an explanation for anything however it's just a cop out.

[lendarios]

The misconception that abounds is that hunter-gatherer societies moved to agricultural based life because it lead to a better food supply. However, the opposite actually appears to be true. Early agricultural communities were extremely susceptible to wide ranging natural disasters (drought, flood, pests) that could wipe out most of society. Indeed HG groups had actually been cultivating with shifting agricultural for 20,000 years or so before the first cities began to take root. A small, highly mobile, HG gatherer group with a dozen or so cultivated areas were much better suited to handle the elements (actually a very popular theory is that the wide ranging HGs never really left to join the early societies, and essentially became the warrior elite caste, as they were better nourished and skilled in fighting. So they basically subjugated the populations of early civilizations.).

Food supply wasn't the only problem with early agriculture either. The work was seasonal, brutal, and large populations living in close proximity brought out new diseases that had previously been suppressed by a migratory way of life. Early farmers were in absolutely awful shape. So, anthropologists naturally wondered why we even made the move in the first place, and a fairly convincing answer comes in the form of religion. Many anthropologists think that, essentially, early cities were built for the express purposes of collecting offerings to the gods/spirits, and only after this did the manifest benefits of civilization become clear.

got a source on that "many anthropologists "??

[...]

A "Scientific Theory" isn't the same thing as a random person having their own private theory. Jesus Fucking Christ.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Teach what else exactly? There's no competing theories to evolution with the slightest bit of evidence to support them. All creationists can do is point to the tiny gaps in our understanding of the universe and declare the void to be the work of God. Pointing to a creator is not an explanation for anything however it's just a cop out.

In the Glen Beck video Ben Stein said this:

[Lightnining] struck a mud puddle and out of that mud puddle came a fully equipped Boeing 747, because a human cell or a plant cell or a frog cell has hundreds of thousands of very complicated moving parts all of which have to work together in exact synchronization with each other to build the cell, repair the cell, and reproduce the cell. Darwin thought it was just Jello™ inside the cell.

People that have no understanding of the molecular mechanisms that make life possible find it very easy to accept evolution because in the observable world we can see clear indisputable evidence proving that evolution is a fact. However, a big problem develops once you start trying to apply evolution to biochemistry and genetics. The massive amount of complexity housed in each living cell is ridiculously explained as being produced by natural selection working through random chance. Current biological science has identified perfectly calibrated molecular machines that have redundant systems as backups should something go wrong. How does random chance, even given billions of years, produce a machine capable of repairing and replicating itself? This is really what all living things are, machines made from molecules much more complex than the plastics, metals, and alloys we use to make machines. Evolution says over a very long period of time, through trial and error, these machines were made step by step. Unfortunately, there are systems in organisms that could not have come into existence in a step by step process. This is know as irreductable complexity. For those that would actually like to become educated about this subject and see an actual SCIENTIFIC basis for ID, I invite you to read Darwin's Black Box by biochemist Michael Behe. It is not a long read but it may shake your faith (lol) in atheism. This is not some preachy religious book. It is Dr. Behe's work written so that normal people can read and understand it. I haven't checked to see if there is a thread about this in the Book forum, but if not I will add it.

[Dirus]

Evolution will never be the Law of Evolution...or the Fact of Evolution.

In science, theories explain facts and laws...they are supported by facts and laws. They dont become laws.

Example: Law of conservation of matter....matter isnt created or destroyed in chemical reactions. Why???? the law doenst provide an answer.

Enter the Theory!! Atomic Theory (yes, the idea that matter is made of atoms is still called the atomic THEORY) explains why the law of conservation of matter is true.

Evolution is taught as the way things really happen (and not as some random idea that might be true) for the same reason that atomic theory and tectonic theory are taught as the way things happen. These theories can explain a whole ton of stuff, have a shitload of evidence backing them, and havent been shown to be false.

edit: as to the post above about Behe...see Ken Miller and his arguments that destroy Behe's

[Smocca]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

In the Glen Beck video Ben Stein said this:


People that have no understanding of the molecular mechanisms that make life possible find it very easy to accept evolution because in the observable world we can see clear indisputable evidence proving that evolution is a fact. However, a big problem develops once you start trying to apply evolution to biochemistry and genetics. The massive amount of complexity housed in each living cell is ridiculously explained as being produced by natural selection working through random chance. Current biological science has identified perfectly calibrated molecular machines that have redundant systems as backups should something go wrong. How does random chance, even given billions of years, produce a machine capable of repairing and replicating itself? This is really what all living things are, machines made from molecules much more complex than the plastics, metals, and alloys we use to make machines. Evolution says over a very long period of time, through trial and error, these machines were made step by step. Unfortunately, there are systems in organisms that could not have come into existence in a step by step process. This is know as irreductable complexity. For those that would actually like to become educated about this subject and see an actual SCIENTIFIC basis for ID, I invite you to read Darwin's Black Box by biochemist Michael Behe. It is not a long read but it may shake your faith (lol) in atheism. This is not some preachy religious book. It is Dr. Behe's work written so that normal people can read and understand it. I haven't checked to see if there is a thread about this in the Book forum, but if not I will add it.

Here's a thread from a few months ago. It has a video of a seminar with a cellular biologist which devotes a very large amount of time to refuting exactly that point (irreducible complexity) and talks specifically about Michael Behe.

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/scree...own+university

Its a really interesting video which explains in very simple terms how Behe is basically full of shit.

[Zinke]

The problem is that the ID proponents are trying to make it sound like Evolutionists are an organization that doesn't want another theory. Ben and O'reilly refer to it as the 'church' of evolution.. but no evolutionists think like that! Hell, the term 'evolutionists' is misleading. 'Evolutionists' just means logical thinking individuals who see that the theory continues to hold up even as more information becomes available. No one said it answers all the questions to the entire universe, NO SCIENCE DOES. That's what science is always seeking to find, the answers. It does not propose or claim to know all the answers already. You cannot say 'well, evolution can't answer how answer how this happened, and ID does' as a logical reason for ID being a science. ID just says 'thar be dragons! rarrr..' THAT'S NOT AN ANSWER, that's a belief! Science goes 'well, we don't know.. yet. We're still trying to figure that out. One we have enough proof, we'll let you know. But, our theory does at least answer these other questions..'

The ID people are the ones who have made this some kind of battle. The scientific community did not go into churches going 'you guys are morons, lolz!!'. But, the ID people did the exact opposite. They brought a, effectively, spiritual belief and tried to dress it up as a science.