Ben Stein Expelled

[Arbitrary]

Evolution is a theory that tries to explain the origin of matter and the origin of natural laws in the universe now?

It's a bullshit rant about science in general for no reason that I can even foresee. Plugging every unknown hole in the entire scope of reality with God doesn't explain a fucking thing.

If you need that explanation to sleep better at night, then whatever. Keep that shit out of Biology 101.

[Screamfeeder]

Originally Posted by Ben Stein

* How did the universe start?
* Where did matter come from?
* Where did energy come from?
* Where did gravity come from?
* Where did the laws of motion, thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, come from?
* Where did gravity come from?
* How did inorganic matter, that is, lifeless matter such as dirt and rocks, become living beings?

None of these things have anything to do with Evolution whatsoever. So it's not a logical fallacy, it's just that Ben Stein, for all his lauded intellect, has no idea about science at all in any way, shape or form.

Originally Posted by Ben Stein

* Has anyone ever observed beyond doubt the evolution of a new mammalian or aviary species, as opposed to changes within a species?

Nope. But funny how he moved the goal posts to only say mammalian or aviary. Why did he not include reptiles which have a more complex morphology than birds? I bet you all can figure out that answer. In a couple thousand thousand years I hope Mr. Stein is still around so he can ask this same question but this time leave off birds.

Originally Posted by Ben Stein

To my little pea brain, these are some pretty big issues about evolution, the origins of life, and genetics that Darwinism cannot answer.

And "Darwinism" doesn't attempt to address them because they have nothing to do with evolution. So you're correct Mr. Stein, you do have a little pea brain.

Originally Posted by Ben Stein

Now, to be fair, does anyone else have verifiable answers either? Not as far as I know.

Then you should stop looking at biology and start looking at physics.


Rest of that article is just Mr. Stein trying to say scientists are communists and crying a river because his backers don't get to preach the good word about Jesus in schools.

[Tbird]

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

None of these things have anything to do with Evolution whatsoever. So it's not a logical fallacy, it's just that Ben Stein, for all his lauded intellect, has no idea about science at all in any way, shape or form.

No, I think he very much does. He's in someone's pocket in a big way, though.

Originally Posted by Asmadai

I bet it's only 5 minutes until someone claim's Ben Stein's argument is a 'logical fallacy'.

Screamfeeder already addressed this. Condemning evolution (or rather, "Darwinism" since that sounds more sinister) for not giving answers to the origins of our universe is like saying that Newton's laws of motion are useless because they don't explain why hydrogen is the lightest element.

I've already mentioned this numerous times in my recent posts in this thread: this is an incredibly common tactic taken by creationists. This tactic preys on the ignorant and uneducated, because they don't know any better. And Stein should be ashamed of himself for doing it.

[voodoochile78]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

It's a bullshit rant about science in general for no reason that I can even foresee.

Oh come on now, the reason is easy to see. Why would a highly educated secular Jew like Ben Stein peddle Fundamentalist Christian mythology? Because there's a lot of money to be made in doing so.

[Arbitrary]

Originally Posted by voodoochile78

Oh come on now, the reason is easy to see. Why would a highly educated secular Jew like Ben Stein peddle Fundamentalist Christian mythology? Because there's a lot of money to be made in doing so.

Well, yeah.

I mentally excuse "for the Benjarmins" along with "because I'm a huge fucking cockbag" when I look for reasons as to why someone is engaging in action X.

Although often on the mark, they just are not satisfying answers.

[voodoochile78]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

Well, yeah.

I mentally excuse "for the Benjarmins" along with "because I'm a huge fucking cockbag" when I look for reasons as to why someone is engaging in action X.

Although often on the mark, they just are not satisfying answers.

How about another then: Former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein is a life-long Republican operative and is doing his part to energize the Republican base on a cultural wedge issue in an election year?

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by voodoochile78

How about another then: Former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein is a life-long Republican operative and is doing his part to energize the Republican base on a cultural wedge issue in an election year?

He's been vocally critical of some of the stances this administration has taken though, particularly on the war.

It's entirely possible that he just wants to be intellectually contrarian; there is fun to be had in that, and it's certainly self-aggrandizing.

[voodoochile78]

I don't know his stance on the war, but nonetheless he is a life-long Republican operative.

[Arbitrary]

See! Those are both more interesting. Never would have gotten there without throwing out the easier answers.

You know, like God made it so.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Eomer

I'm no expert, but I know enough about genetics that I don't need to look it up thanks.

oooooh so testy.

Completely untrue. Evolution through natural selection is not a random process. Mutation is very much random, agreed. However when you introduce selection of some sort (in this case survivability), then it becomes very much a non-random process.

I want you to go back and read what I said again.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Suffice to say, mutation is a pretty random process. So this random process designed proteins, oligosaccharides, and pigments to look just like a flower.

I was talking about mutation. You just agreed that mutation is a random process right? These sentences are one after another, how did you make the jump from mutation to evolution? Mutations had to produce the structures and pigments so that natural selection can act on them. I know what argument you are trying to use here because Schatze used the same one many pages ago and I have heard it many times. It was wrong then and it is now. MUTATIONS HAVE TO OCCUR BEFORE NATURAL SELECTION.

Have you read the Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins? You really should if you haven't, it's a fantastic read.

Yeah I do have to read this. I know the gist of Dawkins' argument and I agree with it in most circumstances.

Again, evolution through natural selection is not a random process. People that claim it is either do not understand it very well, or they're intentionally being intellectually dishonest.

At no time did I ever claim otherwise. It was you that changed what I said to make it fit your argument. When you couple mutation to natural selection you get evolution, an brutal yet elegant system that ensures only the best organisms survive. But I am uncoupling mutation from natural selection and talking about how mutation has to produce these deformities in the first place. The selecting for them is the "easy" part, it is causing them that is difficult.

I can also take it a step further and say these mutations have to be randomly produced in an order which suits natural selection. Now it is becoming a nonrandom process, but my argument here is how many mutations have to happen all at once to make something a benefit rather than a drawback? The incidence of mutation is rather low and it is a good thing or all those traits that were selected for would not be able to be passed onto the next generation. But I will admit this argument CAN be refuted simply by throwing more and more time at it, so I won't throw you this easy bone.

Again, you're basing your entire argument on your assumption that evolution is random, and that's a false assumption. And then based on that false assumption, you find problems with evolution, and fill those holes that you imagine to be there with some sort of "intelligence", which to anyone who is not religious sounds an awful lot like god. That's a problem.

*buzzer* Wrong, try again. You are plugging the wrong hole. People don't like it when you change holes without warning them.

[voodoochile78]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

But I will admit this argument CAN be refuted simply by throwing more and more time at it, so I won't throw you this easy bone.

Too late, you already did. It's like you typed yourself into a corner and were either too lazy to delete it, or your ancestors never evolved a right pinky to reach that backspace key.

Seriously, 2 paragraphs of typing only to own yourself in the last sentence. I bet it looked a whole lot better in your head.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Now here is my dilemma. Look at the pictures below. Both of them are praying mantes. The first one looks like a leaf. OK, I can believe that through millions of years mutation has adapted a great form of camouflage which is relatively simple: flat body, green coloring. The other one... looks like a fucking flower.

As I got more and more educated on genetics and molecular biology, I discovered there are only so many different mechanisms that mutate DNA that evolution can act through: insertion, deletion, and recombination. I don't want this post to take me hours to write, so I will leave it up to you to go and look these up. Suffice to say, mutation is a pretty random process. So this random process designed proteins, oligosaccharides, and pigments to look just like a flower. And not just any flower. Camouflage does no good unless you look like your environment. So that means that a series of random mutations led to a mantis that looks exactly like some other completely unrelated organism that was close at hand. Not like another bug, no that would be kind of easy. We are talking about random mutation creating a replica of a complex plant breeding structure out of an insect. That kind of luck just doesn't make logical sense to me no matter how many millions of years it had.

THAT is why I still have faith that there is something more to the puzzle of evolution that we haven't found yet. Now whether that is some sort of intelligence... well, none of you atheists want to hear that so let's just say this kind of directed perfection has to have more to the story.

Thats why it doesnt make sense...you dont understand it. You see a bug that resembles a flower and then leaping to the conclusion that bug evolved in a narrow defined path by magic to resemble a flower. First off orchid mantis's alter their coloration based on environment as they develop and molt. Its not a specific mutation making them pink to match a pink flower. Its a trait to alter their coloration based on environment over the span of their lives. Its not nearly as mystical as you make it appear.

Unfathomable amounts of mantis evolved in unfathomable ways. You seem to also discount the behavior and actions of the species as it dictates evolution. Its not only how a trait helps something survive. Survival means nothing if you cant attract a mate. So now could species on some instinctual/bug intelligence level select mates based on how they resemble their environment?
Id be willing to accept the idea that genetic memory is also an evolved trait before i rely on invisible magical friends. That female mantis select mates upon criteria for survival even further "refining" evolved traits beyond pure survival. The example of the mantis isnt even one of the stranger examples. Faith isnt required to understand we dont know everything about evolution. You are just randomly imposing what you WANT to believe.

[Laedrun]

Originally Posted by voodoochile78

Oh come on now, the reason is easy to see. Why would a highly educated secular Jew like Ben Stein peddle Fundamentalist Christian mythology? Because there's a lot of money to be made in doing so.

lol, christians got their mythology about creation from the fucking Jews. How is it crazy for a jew to believe the shit they made up?

You're letting your "Fundamentalist Christian/ebil republican wix" derangement blind you to the obvious answer. (he might actually believe that crap)

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Laedrun

You're letting your "Fundamentalist Christian/ebil republican wix" derangement blind you to the obvious answer. (he might actually believe that crap)

A lot of us find it very difficult to believe, that otherwise seemingly intelligent people could believe this shit, and not have some sort of agenda.