Ben Stein's Intelligent Design

[VulcanJedi]

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

New film from Ben Stein.

Science is partly about asking questions, right? Inquiry.

Free speech on campus?

Or are we absorbed by the Borg?

Will the media now paint Ben Stein as a dope?

 

[JoeZhang]

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

New film from Ben Stein.

Science is partly about asking questions, right? Inquiry.

Free speech on campus?

Or are we absorbed by the Borg?

Will the media now paint Ben Stein as a dope?

Who needs the media? I've seen it in a preview, the guy is a dope. The thing is, that I'm betting that the ID guys hate this film because it makes ID look religious - something they've tried hard to hide.

 

[Deckerd]

Shouldn't this be in General TV and Media?

 

[JoeZhang]

Shouldn't this be in General TV and Media?

Yeah because there is no science being discussed here (because there isn't any in the film).

 

[Geoff]

Click here to read about how the famous biologist PZ Myers, who is prominently featured in the film and was invited to a screening, was thrown out of the theater by the film's producers.

Click here for a very extensive review by Richard Dawkins.

 

[JoeZhang]

Click here to read about how the famous biologist PZ Myers, who is prominently featured in the film and was invited to a screening, was thrown out of the theater by the film's producers.

Click here for a very extensive review by Richard Dawkins.

The best thing about that Myers story is that he was with Dawkins, who they let in!

 

[TerriO]

Okay, I'm not going to sit by and let this turn into a religion versus science discussion. Let's just put that to a stop right now, please.

Open your minds a bit, guys, 'kay? For those who haven't seen the film, we only have the website to go on, and so do I. You can't prove that science isn't being discussed in the film by what's presented on the website. Actually, it would prove quite the opposite. It would prove that the scientific community is rather solidly labeling as crackpots anyone who questions Darwin. Sounds fairly familiar to the people who used to label as crackpots anyone who thought the Earth was round and orbited the Sun, no? Because we all knew that the Earth was really flat, and the Sun circled the planet once a day, and we know that's still true, right?

I've been checking out the website, and science is being discussed in the film. Science, in fact, learning in general, is about asking questions. If we don't ask, how are we supposed to learn what we don't know? Are we supposed to just sit and live in blissful ignorance, believing everything we're told?

We already know there is some archaeological evidence to back up some of the stories in the Bible. There has been an equally-controversial theory circulating for at least 10 years now about Noah's Flood (and various other related legends) being the flooding of the Black Sea with salt water in the breaking of the Bosporus, for instance. As with bits and pieces of the Bible, there is archaeology out there to back up some of the stories, but not all of them.

Is it controversial? No doubt. Is it asking questions that need to be asked of the scientific community? Quite probably. Is it scientific discussion? After much consideration, to censure the notion of it being discussed in a science forum would be to follow in the footsteps of the very same people whose narrow views caused the movie to be made. And I won't do that. If we don't ask questions, we don't learn. As Lwaxanna Troi once said, "The mind opens, and in creeps wisdom." If we can keep open minds, perhaps we might learn a few things.

And before anyone starts lambasting me as being a Bible-thumper, let me say this: I keep a copy of the Bible on the same shelf with books on other cultural myths and legends. I gave up organized religion for Lent when I was about 12. However, that doesn't change the fact that I find Biblical archaeology fascinating.

There's room for both sides in this discussion, and we can either do it in here and try to keep a relatively sane and intelligent discussion going, or it can go to TNZ where it'll just degenerate at about Warp 12.

I should like to think our posters here are able to keep a relatively sane and intelligent discussion of the subject going. Prove me right, guys.

 

[JoeZhang]

We already know there is some archaeological evidence to back up some of the stories in the Bible. There has been an equally-controversial theory circulating for at least 10 years now about Noah's Flood (and various other related legends) being the flooding of the Black Sea with salt water in the breaking of the Bosporus, for instance. As with bits and pieces of the Bible, there is archaeology out there to back up some of the stories, but not all of them.

This is complete claptrap - there is no other way to put it. please start a thread that presents this evidence. The flood is a myth, it never happened, the earth is not 5,000 years old.

equally-controversial theory circulating for at least 10 years now about Noah's Flood

There is absolutely NOTHING controversial about Noah's flood, it was rejected by science so long ago, it's not even a matter of discussion. Creationists like to pretend there is debate about those things but it's only amongst whacked out creationists, it's not taken seriously anywhere else.

 

[TerriO]

We already know there is some archaeological evidence to back up some of the stories in the Bible. There has been an equally-controversial theory circulating for at least 10 years now about Noah's Flood (and various other related legends) being the flooding of the Black Sea with salt water in the breaking of the Bosporus, for instance. As with bits and pieces of the Bible, there is archaeology out there to back up some of the stories, but not all of them.

This is complete claptrap - there is no other way to put it. please start a thread that presents this evidence. The flood is a myth, it never happened, the earth is not 5,000 years old.

Could you please show me where I said the Earth was 5,000 years old? Because I didn't. Not once.

National Geographic followed Bob Ballard on the Black Sea expedition 8 years ago. There is evidence backing a controversial theory for a source for the flood myth, which is what I said.

equally-controversial theory circulating for at least 10 years now about Noah's Flood

There is absolutely NOTHING controversial about Noah's flood, it was rejected by science so long ago, it's not even a matter of discussion. Creationists like to pretend there is debate about those things but it's only amongst whacked out creationists, it's not taken seriously anywhere else.

The THEORY presented by Ballard, as well as the evidence he found in the exploration of the Black Sea is controversial, not Noah's Flood. Again, you're putting words in my mouth that I never said.

And if you could point me to a link where it's proven to be rejected by science, I'd be happy to read it.

And let's keep the "whacked out creationists" insults out of here, please. If you can't disprove someone's statement without resorting to insults, then please keep it out of the discussion.

 

[Geoff]

I've been checking out the website, and science is being discussed in the film. Science, in fact, learning in general, is about asking questions. If we don't ask, how are we supposed to learn what we don't know? Are we supposed to just sit and live in blissful ignorance, believing everything we're told?

Of course I agree with that. The problem with ID is not that it is bad science. The problem with ID is that it is anti-science. The whole notion behind ID (which, let us not forget, is simply Creationism in a funny hat) is the belief that there are certain questions that science cannot and should not examine--specifically, the origin of life. Therefore, we should simply throw up our hands and say, "God did it! End of story!"

With what I can infer from the filmmakers' own promotional materials (supplemented by the admittedly hostile reviews I've read online), the film basically uses Darwin as a huge straw-man, claiming that Darwinism fails to adequately explain the origins of life. But that's not what Darwin is about. Darwin never proposed anything regarding origins of life; he proposed the origins of species--or in other words, evolution. And evolution is a concept that ID is completely unable to counter with any alternate scientific theory.

Again, the absurdity of the ID position is that they claim "repression" when there is nothing to repress. The creationist/ID crowd has absolutely no valid scientific explanation for the origins of life or of species, nor do they claim to have one. Their position is one that is hostile to science in general, because science always seeks a non-theological explanation for what we observe in nature. And that is something that they simply cannot tolerate.

 

[JoeZhang]

My apologies, I thought you were saying that biblical flood was a real thing rather than just a myth based on a local event.

And if you could point me to a link where it's proven to be rejected by science, I'd be happy to read it.

Give me 30 minutes to knock that one up (or em.. sometime later.. a puppy has arrived at my door..).

 

[TerriO]

My apologies, I thought you were saying that biblical flood was a real thing rather than just a myth based on a local event.

Thank you. Considering that there are other flood myths that predate the myth of Noah's Flood (the legend of Gilgamesh, for example), there is definitely a cultural indicator that some flood of epic proportions is very likely to have happened in ancient history for so many cultures to have a myth about it. The cultural evidence handed down to us suggests that something happened, that's for sure.

And if you could point me to a link where it's proven to be rejected by science, I'd be happy to read it.

Give me 30 minutes to knock that one up.

Not a problem. Especially if the article can manage to disproved Ballard's theory while it's at it.

Mankind has always exhibited a natural inclination to attribute to the divine that which we have no science to explain, since at least the Ancient Greeks and Romans, if not further back than that. Personally, when it comes to the ID/Evolution debate, this is a case where we have some science to explain it, but because we don't have the Big Bang sorted yet, the divine is still considered part of the equation by many people.

Granted, I never ever thought I'd see the day I'd be arguing for ID to get a fair hearing, but shouldn't arguments for both sides be allowed, if we're going to give this a rational, intelligent discussion? If the arguments for ID as a scientific theory are automatically dismissed, does that make us any better or worse than the scientists being exposed in the film?

 

[Meredith]

My apologies, I thought you were saying that biblical flood was a real thing rather than just a myth based on a local event.

Thank you. Considering that there are other flood myths that predate the myth of Noah's Flood (the legend of Gilgamesh, for example), there is definitely a cultural indicator that some flood of epic proportions is very likely to have happened in ancient history for so many cultures to have a myth about it. The cultural evidence handed down to us suggests that something happened, that's for sure.

And if you could point me to a link where it's proven to be rejected by science, I'd be happy to read it.

Give me 30 minutes to knock that one up.

Not a problem. Especially if the article can manage to disproved Ballard's theory while it's at it.

Mankind has always exhibited a natural inclination to attribute to the divine that which we have no science to explain, since at least the Ancient Greeks and Romans, if not further back than that. Personally, when it comes to the ID/Evolution debate, this is a case where we have some science to explain it, but because we don't have the Big Bang sorted yet, the divine is still considered part of the equation by many people.

Granted, I never ever thought I'd see the day I'd be arguing for ID to get a fair hearing, but shouldn't arguments for both sides be allowed, if we're going to give this a rational, intelligent discussion? If the arguments for ID as a scientific theory are automatically dismissed, does that make us any better or worse than the scientists being exposed in the film?

The flood myth doesn't prove creationism. The big ass flood that is in so many culture's memories is more then likely a deluge of water or mutliple deluges caused by the melting of ice-age ice around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago.

 

[Geoff]

Granted, I never ever thought I'd see the day I'd be arguing for ID to get a fair hearing, but shouldn't arguments for both sides be allowed, if we're going to give this a rational, intelligent discussion? If the arguments for ID as a scientific theory are automatically dismissed, does that make us any better or worse than the scientists being exposed in the film?

Again, I fully agree in principle. But I'm still waiting for an ID supporter to put forth a theory to explain life's origins that is scientific and not simply a defeatist ex nihilo position that relies upon the supernatural. Until that happens, ID remains a religious, not a scientific, belief. And if we are going to teach that in the schools, what else are we going to teach? Scientology? Brahmaism? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[TerriO]

The flood myth doesn't prove creationism. The big ass flood that is in so many culture's memories is more then likely a deluge of water or mutliple deluges caused by the melting of ice-age ice around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Again, when did I say the flood myth proved Creationism?

All I'm saying is that archaeology has proven that there are SOME bases in history for the stories in the Bible. They can't prove the whole book's history, and I doubt they ever will, but there are SOME things mentioned that have a basis or two in reality.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

It's hard to keep the religion versus science debate out of the thread, when it was brought up in post #1. Intelligent Design is religion - full stop. They have no scientific arguments, other than a handful of poorly thought out arguments from ignorance ("irreducible complexity" claptrap) and other logical fallacies. I'd be happy to discuss any evidence there is supporting Creationism if and when it is presented, but unfortunately there isn't any at this point.

-MEC

 

[JoeZhang]

The flood myth doesn't prove creationism. The big ass flood that is in so many culture's memories is more then likely a deluge of water or mutliple deluges caused by the melting of ice-age ice around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Again, when did I say the flood myth proved Creationism?

All I'm saying is that archaeology has proven that there are SOME bases in history for the stories in the Bible. They can't prove the whole book's history, and I doubt they ever will, but there are SOME things mentioned that have a basis or two in reality.

Just so my answer is to the point - what particular type of flood is it that you think is more likely? straight forward rain or "foundations of the deep"?

I ask because the evidence disproving either is slightly different and I'd rather just tackle one specific type of global flood myth.

 

[ancient]

Gotta love Ben Stein!

Creationism and Darwinism aren't even really theories about the exact same thing, which is one of the reasons I find this whole us vs them crap kind of annoying. Darwin had a theory of evolving species, and Creationism is an origin story. There is no origin story in Darwinism. Unless you count that new crap about a lightning bolt and an alien virus, which is hilarious.

I personally am only interested in useful theory to advance medical understanding. Darwin, like Freud, was the father of a new branch of study, but he isn't the end all and be all. Stem cells and such are really an interesting part of medical advancement I want to see more of.

btw, that whole 6000 yrs thing is purely shakey math based on geneology from the Hebrew sections of the bible, it really has nothing to do with Creationism. From the purely religious pov, you have god making the Earth & Heavens for some unknown period of time, then the six days where he turned the Earth from a lifeless sphere to one with life, then some unknown amount of time where Adam was the only human (It must've been a while if he had time to name every animal on the planet) Then Eve is made, then some unknown amount of time with the 2 of them, then sin & expulsion, then the 2nd generation being born. So really, who the hell knows how long that stuff was supposed to take? It's really vague on time before the 2nd generation.

 

[ancient]

Just so my answer is to the point - what particular type of flood is it that you think is more likely? straight forward rain or "foundations of the deep"?

I ask because the evidence disproving either is slightly different...

There is a bit of a problem with trying to say "God couldn't____" so I presume you mean disproving the flood assuming God isn't real. If you assume he is real, any proof you want to present is useless.

 

[TerriO]

It's hard to keep the religion versus science debate out of the thread, when it was brought up in post #1. Intelligent Design is religion - full stop. They have no scientific arguments, other than a handful of poorly thought out arguments from ignorance ("irreducible complexity" claptrap) and other logical fallacies. I'd be happy to discuss any evidence there is supporting Creationism if and when it is presented, but unfortunately there isn't any at this point.

-MEC

Hey, I'm trying.

The flood myth doesn't prove creationism. The big ass flood that is in so many culture's memories is more then likely a deluge of water or mutliple deluges caused by the melting of ice-age ice around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Again, when did I say the flood myth proved Creationism?

All I'm saying is that archaeology has proven that there are SOME bases in history for the stories in the Bible. They can't prove the whole book's history, and I doubt they ever will, but there are SOME things mentioned that have a basis or two in reality.

Just so my answer is to the point - what particular type of flood is it that you think is more likely? straight forward rain or "foundations of the deep"?

I ask because the evidence disproving either is slightly different and I'd rather just tackle one specific type of global flood myth.

I'm already aware that there's no archaeological evidence of a global flood as depicted in the Bible. However, from what I've seen of the National Geographic film, and read of Ballard's Black Sea expeditions, that theory appears to be more of a "deluge" type of flood, where a particular civilization was overwhelmed by water (be it via tsunami, a breakdown of the land in the Bosporus, etc.), and that civilization either had only one or two survivors or was completely eliminated.

That's the thing with stories passed down through oral history, the details at the first telling of the tale aren't always the same as the details when it's finally written down.