Ben Stein Expelled

[Azrayne]

So now that we've all more or less accepted that ID shouldn't be treated as a scientific theory on par with evolution, who wants to make fun of the movie in general for a bit?

I find it hilarious that they're trying for this whole 'anti-establishment rebel' image, like science is some big notorious organization trying to keep down the truth about intelligent design.

From their website:

'Big science has expelled smart new idea's from the classroom. What they forgot is that every generation has it's Rebel...' (rebel being in big bold red letters.

When did ID become a 'new idea.' Wasn't it the dominant theory up until a century or two ago, starting from, oh I don't know, the fucking dawn of civilization. What's 'new' about that?

The whole thing just cracks me up. It's your geeky, 40-something balding highschool teacher who goes to church every sunday trying to pull a Michael Moore, except they picked the most ridiculous side of the most unlikely argument to attempt this with.

The whole thing is just /facepalm irl.

The quote they use on the flash intro is awsome too. 'If people think god is interesting, the onus is on them to prove that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.' (the last sentence in red writing of course).

Basically, Dawkins is saying that the Onus of proof is on religion. Which is exactly how it is. And somehow they're trying to make it out as if he's trying to suppress dangerous and radical new idea's.

[Millie]

Well, that's the whole irony of it. Religious authorities have been trying to suppress scientific progress for the better part of 10,000 years, and now, all of the sudden, they're trying out a new tactic: "We're not trying to suppress science; science is trying to suppress us!"

It's just a stupid marketing/positioning ploy on the part of the evangelical leaders, or whoever the hell is coming up with this latest push for creationism. Sadly, a lot of people seem to be buying into it.

It's also highly ironic that they expend so much energy trying to disprove or cast doubt upon evolution, when they can't even prove a damned thing about their own position. But that's a whole different story.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Millie

Ok, but no banners make baby Jesus cry.

You know, irreverence and mockery are one thing, but that's just straight up SACRILEGE right there and it's getting tiresome. Mark 13:42 clearly shows us that Jesus would always have his own joints, which magically multiplied under his toga.

[Sole]

I'd love to see a cameo by Ken Miller in this movie.

[Zuuljin]

The whole evolution debate is a giant clusterfuck of semantics. Look at every thread that ever starts on religion/evolution and it quickly degrades into trying to clarify the meaning of the words.

I think the first thing that needs to be done is someone official needs to sit down and clarify the words being used. Theory? Whats it mean. Why is evolution a theory and ID is not, or vise versa. Does theory mean fact? Does it mean a guess?

Then, someone needs to figure out if evolution includes abiogenesis. I would say evolution starts after life began, and deals with how life "evolves" and abiogenesis deals with how life started. Taking away the start of life from evolution SEVERLY cripples opposing views since that is the one area evolution has yet to really explain which removes its weakness.

The problem I see is that both sides LIKE to muddy the issue so they can "win" the argument by semantics. Ben Stiens little movie here wouldnt get near the publicity if it was ID vs abiogenesis (which it is imo) which has NOTHING to do with evolution.

[Mimirswell]

Originally Posted by Locithon

Wrong. The word theory in science has a different definition than the one your thinking of, theory essentially means fact..or many facts put together. That's why it's called Einstein's THEORY of relativity.

Wrong. Theory is an attempt create a logical and consistent framework for describing a subset of observations of social and/or natural phenomena. Theory is not a fact or facts and scientific theories are very often modified. Large sections of Darwin's theory of evolution have been discarded or heavily modified and the theory of evolution you learned in the 90s is no longer the same theory used today.

As an aside, Behe's irreducible complexity theory has been completely deprived of it's "facts". His prime example, the flagella has been especially demonstrated as quite reducible as has the blood clotting and the evolution of the eye.

Intelligence Design is a theory, it's just a bad theory because it is does not have a logical and consistent model when scrutinized by scientific methodolgy.

[Smocca]

Originally Posted by Mimirswell

it's just a bad theory because it is does not have a logical and consistent model when scrutinized by scientific methodolgy.

Not to mention it's completely untestable and makes no predictions so therefore is valueless.

[Arbitrary]

Science versus Religion arguments are immediate failures because they share no common ground but the language used confuses us into thinking that there is. Look at the something as simple as what counts as evidence for one and then the other. Calling intelligent design a theory is also incredibly problematic. What was the original hypothesis? What experiments and observations lead from that original thesis? How did the thesis of intelligent design become an accepted theory? Can I replicate those experiments to see for myself?

Well, there was little to no application of the scientific method anywhere. But, by calling it a theory you've got the scientific community thinking one thing while the religious community is thinking something else. So everyone starts arguing about theories when in fact one side is arguing about dragons and the other is arguing about apples. The similarity of the language has obfuscated what people are trying to communicate.

The entire debate is, in effect, born completely of misunderstandings and completely without value.

Also, Locithon, go ahead and sit down. Make yourself a cup of cocoa and just quietly blend back into the crowd. Holy fuck man, seriously.

[Zehn - Vhex]

What Arb said.

My favorite part of these threads is that even after 15 years of religious/atheism debates on the internet, these threads are made up entirely of 3 distinct groups.

1) Two people going back and forth and having an actual conversation discussing their opinions and beliefs which would most likely be better off taking place in IM's so that it would die off in 20 seconds when they realize how retarded they sound.

2) One person who spends about 30 posts clarifying what he meant in every single preceding post.

3) And everybody else who just randomly posts their opinion on the subject, ~maybe~ quoting a post at random, without any regard as to whether or not it's actually relevant to the current direction of the topic at hand.

The thread never changes. The only thing that changes are the names of people who've written books about the subject.

Edit:

Oh, and 4) Asshole schmucks like me who feel they're somehow enlightened and above the topic so they post about how ridiculous it really is.

[Aamina]

I'm just not sure why most science can't go hand-in-hand with religion. People talk about them like they're completely different but to me they're not. I know for a fact God doesn't disobey natural laws, because even though I think of him as Omnipotent, there are things he cannot do simply because natural laws constrain him.

That isn't to say that God isn't aware of more natural laws and ways around what we think are incontrovertible natural laws, but it chafes me that people feel there are only two sides to things.

Like the Law of Conservation of Matter. This law can not only exist in religion, it does exist. In the Hebrew from Genesis, the word "organize" (rather than create) is used when referring to matter in the Creation. Simply put, He did not make something from nothing because all matter formed into something existed at one time as other matter. People have said "nuh-uh!" to me about so many things to "disprove" how ridiculous religion is, but to me, it only proves it.

[Loki]

Except the word "organize" has probably been translated about 50 times from its original version, and chances are someone recently interpreted it as "organize" rather than create, fabricate, initiate, form, compose, concoct, conceive, construct, imagine, or fashion, because it fit their own agenda to do so.

[Aamina]

In Hebrew, it has been and has always been organize. Head on down to Israel and read yourself some Torah. That is the word for organize.

Further small inconsitencies; in the Hebrew, the word for God is sometimes written as something like "head God of all the Gods," which in Jewish Bibles is often translated to mean, God and his angels.

You can see this really weird inconsistency here:

"Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness..." "

Why would he say our, and us? The previous verses contain nothing about multiple people. Its just that the verse was probably translated correctly (given the words used to describe God) and the rest were not. The translation just sucks sometimes.

Anyway that's completely off topic, I'm still saying that for me, the science confirms God's existence, not denies it.

[mek]

Originally Posted by Aamina

I'm just not sure why most science can't go hand-in-hand with religion. People talk about them like they're completely different but to me they're not. I know for a fact God doesn't disobey natural laws, because even though I think of him as Omnipotent, there are things he cannot do simply because natural laws constrain him.

There are tons of science-friendly religions out there. In the case of ID, this is one particular sect (evangelical Christians) actively campaigning against science for political reasons. Their particular interpretation of the Bible is that it is all pure and literal Truth, (and ignoring the fact that this is impossible in itself because the Bible contradicts itself, and that they selectively reject some sections of the Old Testament while reaffirming others) and that therefore they MUST BELIEVE that the earth is 6000 years old, that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark, etc etc.

Furthermore, they believe that science is actively discrediting their religion (semi-true but it's their own fault for believing retarded and obviously false things), and since it is their duty to recruit new evangelicals, they must campaign against science, so they can confuse kids into thinking Darwin was cuckoo and their local pastor is right about everything.

[Astrocreep]

These arguments are really lame, both sides think they are right and push their views on eachother whether it be for or against religion. cant we all just accept some people have a different point of view and its not cool to try and make others agree with you?

what really pisses me off is the asshole who declared Pluto was no longer a planet. wtf, it has a moon and an atmosphere. mercury and venus cant even claim to have those and they are still considered planets.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Zehn - Vhex

And everybody else who just randomly posts their opinion on the subject, ~maybe~ quoting a post at random, without any regard as to whether or not it's actually relevant to the current direction of the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

These arguments are really lame, both sides think they are right and push their views on eachother whether it be for or against religion. cant we all just accept some people have a different point of view and its not cool to try and make others agree with you?

what really pisses me off is the asshole who declared Pluto was no longer a planet. wtf, it has a moon and an atmosphere. mercury and venus cant even claim to have those and they are still considered planets.

Thing is that is what public discourse is about. Resolving conflicting views through debate. The only reason you'd be opposed to having your beliefs challenged is when you deep down know, they are not based in reason.