A Challenge ...

Jointsmith

Well-Known Member
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Ben Stein Provokes the Liberals' Wrath[/FONT]

by Phyllis Schlafly, May 7, 2008

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Ben Stein is known to many as an actor on Comedy Central. But the funniest part about his latest movie called "Expelled" is not any clever lines spoken by Stein but the hysterical way the liberals are trying to discourage people from seeing it. [/FONT]


Stein's critics don't effectively refute anything in "Expelled"; they just use epithets to ridicule it and hope they can make it go away. However, it won't go away; even Scientific American, which labeled the movie "shameful," concedes that it cannot be ignored.

The movie is about how scientists who dare to criticize Darwinism or discuss the contrary theory called Intelligent Design (ID) are expelled, fired, denied tenure, blacklisted, and bitterly denounced. Academic freedom doesn't extend to this issue.

The message of Stein's critics comes through loud and clear. They don't want anybody to challenge Darwinian orthodoxy or suggest that Intelligent Design might be an explanation of the origin of life.

Stein, who serves as his own narrator in the movie, is very deadpan about it all. He doesn't try to convince the audience that Darwinism is a fraud, or that God created the world, or even that some unidentified Intelligent Design might have started life on Earth.

Stein merely shows the intolerance of the universities, the government, the courts, the grant-making foundations and the media, and their determination to suppress any mention of Intelligent Design.

The only question posed by the movie is why, oh why, is there such a deliberate, consistent, widespread, vindictive effort to silence all criticism of dogmatic Darwinism or discussion of alternate theories of the origin of life? Stein interviews scientists who were blacklisted, denied grants, and ostracized in the academic community because they dared to write or speak the forbidden words.

The liberals are particularly upset because the movie identifies Darwinism, rather than evolution, as the sacred word that must be isolated from criticism. But that semantic choice makes good sense because Darwinism is easily defined by Darwin's own writings, whereas the word evolution is subject to different and even contrary definitions.

The truly funny part of the movie is Stein's interview with Richard Dawkins, whose best-selling book "The God Delusion" established this Englishman as the world's premier atheist. Dawkins is a leading advocate of the theory that all life evolved from a single beginning in an ancient mud puddle, perhaps after being struck by lightning.

Putting aside the issue of evolving, how did life begin in the first place? Under Stein's questioning, Dawkins finally said it is possible that life might have evolved on Earth after the arrival of a more highly developed being from another planet.

Aren't aliens from outer space the stuff of science fiction? And how was the other-planet alien created? According to Dawkins, life must have just spontaneously evolved on another planet, of course without God.

Stein spent two years traveling the world to gather material for this movie. He interviewed scores of scientists and academics who say they were retaliated against because of questioning Darwin's theories.

Stein interviewed Dr. Richard Sternberg, a biologist who lost his position at the prestigious Smithsonian Institution after he published a peer-reviewed article that mentioned Intelligent Design. Other academics who said they were victims of the anti-ID campus police included astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, denied tenure at Iowa State University, and Caroline Crocker, who lost her professorship at George Mason University.

Stein dares to include some filming at the death camps in Nazi Germany as a backdrop for interviews that explain Charles Darwin's considerable influence on Adolf Hitler and his well-known atrocities. The Darwin-Hitler connection was not a Stein discovery; Darwin's influence on Hitler's political worldview, and Hitler's rejection of the sacredness of human life, is acknowledged in standard biographies of Hitler.

Stein also addresses how Darwin's theories influenced one of the U.S.'s most embarrassing periods, the eugenics fad of the early 20th century. Thousands of Americans were legally sterilized as physically or mentally unfit.

Mandatory sterilization based on Darwin's theories was even approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes writing his famous line, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Stein also reminds us that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who wanted to eliminate the races she believed were inferior.

Stein's message is that the attack on freedom of inquiry is anti-science, anti-American, and anti-the whole concept of learning. His dramatization should force the public, and maybe even academia, to address this extraordinary intolerance of diversity.

Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/may08/08-05-07.html [/font]
Look, this isn't science, FAITH in something there is no evidence for IS NOT SCIENCE.

What you BELIEVE has nothing to do with SCIENCE.

SCIENCE is observing the world and universe around you. You cannot Observe 'intellegent design' therefore it holds no validaty unless you choose to BELIEVE in it (based on NO evidence).

If scientists could just publish what they BELIEVE (not observe) as science, then all science would be defunct.

Intellegent Design or Not, is Irrelevent (not to mention unanswerable) untill we as humans can OBSERVE some EVIDENCE which can back it up.
 
Last edited:

medicineman

New Member
Sometimes I wonder if the designing of Humans was very intelligent. I mean, we are the only species that can actually make ourselves extinct, and I suspect that we will do that someday soon. If I were to place one species above all the rest, I suppose I'd have to vote for cockroaches. They do a real service in cleaning up our messes and can survive almost anything outside of a human shoe crushing them.
 

email468

Well-Known Member
Sometimes I wonder if the designing of Humans was very intelligent. I mean, we are the only species that can actually make ourselves extinct, and I suspect that we will do that someday soon. If I were to place one species above all the rest, I suppose I'd have to vote for cockroaches. They do a real service in cleaning up our messes and can survive almost anything outside of a human shoe crushing them.
here is an interesting aside - if it weren't for humans, cockroaches (and rats) would not be as successful as they are now. If humans were to go extinct, the cockroach population (not so much the rats) would actually dwindle down to more "normal" numbers.

we are what we are - nature is fucking brutal and we are part of it. The fact that we can change should give us hope though.
 

AlphaNoN

Well-Known Member
Sometimes I wonder if the designing of Humans was very intelligent. I mean, we are the only species that can actually make ourselves extinct, and I suspect that we will do that someday soon. If I were to place one species above all the rest, I suppose I'd have to vote for cockroaches. They do a real service in cleaning up our messes and can survive almost anything outside of a human shoe crushing them.
Actually, if people weren't around to keep buildings/houses heated, roaches would die out anywhere that drops below freezing during winter. We are the only thing keeping them alive in temperate zones.

Edit: damn you and your quick responses email.. lol
 

email468

Well-Known Member
Actually, if people weren't around to keep buildings/houses heated, roaches would die out anywhere that drops below freezing during winter. We are the only thing keeping them alive in temperate zones.

Edit: damn you and your quick responses email.. lol
FIOS baby!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Notice VI doesn't address any previous posts
So, what is there to answer? :roll:

First, so far, scientists haven't produced any fossil evidence to prove their "science" that man evolved from lower life forms.

Second, If they have no fossil evidence for their premise that man has evolved from lower life forms, then they must be forming their beliefs on ... FAITH!

Third, evolution DOES have a place in the belief system of intelligent design thinkers.

Evolution means what?... that things change over time, right? So, perhaps Man has evolved from single cell organisms ... but who, or what created that single cell? Perhaps it was The Big Bang" and lightening struck a mud puddle to get things strated ... but who, or what created the lightening bolt? Perhaps Aliens planted living cells on earth to get things started ... but where did the Aliens come from?

You guys can knock Intelligent Design thinkers all you want for their faith, but to shut down debate, as is being done in American academia, is nothing but stifling free speech to further an agenda. And that agenda is ... the Evolutionists don't have the answer ... but want to continue making money off of the issue.


The dangerous part in this is ... to believe that Man is nothing more than a evolving protoplazem debases human life. That was Stein's point in inferring that Hitler was a Darwinist ... and he was, that point is not arguable.

Again ... See Ben Stein's movie.

Vi
</IMG>
 
Last edited:

email468

Well-Known Member
So, what's is there to answer? :roll:

First, so far, scientists haven't produced any fossil evidence to prove their "science" that man evolved from lower life forms.

Second, If they have no fossil evidence for their premise that man has evolved from lower life forms, then they must be forming their beliefs on ... FAITH!

Third, evolution DOES have a place in the belief system of intelligent design thinkers.

Evolution means what?... that things change over time, right? So, perhaps Man has evolved from single cell organisms ... but who, or what created that single cell? Perhaps it was The Big Bang" and lightening struck a mud puddle to get things strated ... but who, or what created the lightening bolt? Perhaps Aliens planted living cells on earth to get things started ... but where did the Aliens come from?

You guys can knock Intelligent Design thinkers all you want for their faith, but to shut down debate, as is being done in American academia, is nothing but stifling free speech to further an agenda. And that agenda is ... the Evolutionists don't have the answer ... but want to continue making money off of the issue.


The dangerous part in this is ... to believe that Man is nothing more than a evolving protoplazem debases human life. That was Stein's point in inferring that Hitler was a Darwinist ... and he was, that point is not arguable.

Again ... See Ben Stein's movie.

Vi
</IMG>
Debate is fine. I love debate. ID has to be a science first to be debated in a science class room. Debate it in Philosophy or a Religious studies class and knock your socks off.

If Hitler was a Newtonian, would that invalidate gravity? And you should know that everything is arguable.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Debate is fine. I love debate. ID has to be a science first to be debated in a science class room. Debate it in Philosophy or a Religious studies class and knock your socks off.

If Hitler was a Newtonian, would that invalidate gravity? And you should know that everything is arguable.
The problem is, even the mere mention of Intelligent Design in a research paper will get a professor fired in today's universities.

Again ... go see Ben Stein's movie.

Vi
 

email468

Well-Known Member
The problem is, even the mere mention of Intelligent Design in a research paper will get a professor fired in today's universities.

Again ... go see Ben Stein's movie.

Vi
Good for them - unless it was research paper on pseudo-science, mysticism or religion. Intelligent Design has no business in a research paper. Unless you think we should give equal time to every crack-pot idea.

Same goes for astronomy professors who claim we never went to the moon or history professors that deny the holocaust happened.
Prove it or let it go.

Oh and your fossil comment - come on you really believe the fossil record does not support evolution? I have a lot of respect for your level-headedness but you really need to do some research if you believe this movie is for real.
 
Last edited:

Seamaiden

Well-Known Member
Why is fossil evidence required (which is actually there if one avails themselves of the information, esoteric as it may be) for there to be proof? We now have genetics, which has REALLY opened up a whole new world of evidence previously not conceived of.

Fossil evidence exists to demonstrate that some genuses of dinosaurs didn't exactly go extinct, they evolved into birds. Others didn't evolve much beyond changing a few aspects of phenotype (frogs, turtles, Crocodilians, Echinoderms, Nautiloids). If it is applicable to these animals, why not the human animal?

The missing link I see mentioned is merely a link between the earliest hominids and H. sapiens (modern humans). We are continually finding that there were branches to our family tree. Some primates evolved in one direction, others went in a different direction, and quite a few have gone extinct.

It is helpful to understand a bit of organic chemistry, which is complex to be SURE, in order to grasp what is conceptually simple once the evidence is examined. But the main point here, the main issue as I see it, has been well addressed by email and Joint, and that is that evolution came about not as an effort to explain an initial theory, but EVOLVED as the evidence for "something" piled up, whereas intelligent design has an end result in mind and the "evidence" is then gathered to support it. That is not good science, and anyone who's taken junior high science knows that this is anathema to the scientific method.

In any event, MUCH fossil evidence exists, you just have to look. I don't know if I'll spend the time to see the movie, there are so few that I find the time for in the first place. And while I can allow any scientist to have their opinion, they'd better not try to present faith as science in the classroom. Yeah, the universe and the world are mind-blowing, but that cannot and does not translate to intelligent design.

Oh yeah! Before I forget, Google Valayanur Ramachandran, M.D., Ph.D, and "religious center brain". ;) FASCINATING stuff. If you're of a mind to read a book, get "Phantoms in the Brain" to start. :D
Aw, hell...
Vilayanur S. Ramachandran MD, PhD
Vilayanur S. Ramachandran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TED | Talks | Vilayanur Ramachandran: A journey to the center of your mind (video)

This guy is THE SHIT.
 

AlphaNoN

Well-Known Member
Vi, the main problem with ID, from a scientific standpoint, is that it places the answer before the question. ID only has one outcome and is fueled by only one belief; the existence of a creator.

If the proof is there, evolutionary theory has room for a creator, but it will not be added until said proof is found. ID seeks to add this proof before it is found by showing a lack of evidence in evolutionary theorem, absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. If ID does accept that life evolves over time and it's only difference from evolutionary theory is the idea of a creator, then ID is redundant and unnecessary as evolutionary theory will accept a creator so long as proof is found.

The answer lies in the observable future, not the forgotten past.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Interesting comments being made on this subject.

As I said, evolution DOES play a role in Intelligent Design. Stein make that point very clear in his movie. Evolution means that things evolve (change) over time. With this in mind ... there still is no proof that there was NOT an "intellegent designer" at work here. Even the most avid intellectuals are stumped when they get right down to the single cell, or the Big Bang theories.

Email sez ...

"Good for them - unless it was research paper on pseudo-science, mysticism or religion. Intelligent Design has no business in a research paper. Unless you think we should give equal time to every crack-pot idea."

Isn't this the same attitude coming forth from the "Humans are causing global warming" people when their ideas are debated?

And Seamaiden ... If you can provide a link that shows fossil evidence that Man evolved from a lower specie of animal, please do so. Thanks ... :)

Vi
 
Last edited:

email468

Well-Known Member
Interesting comments being made on this subject.

As I said, evolution DOES play a role in Intelligent Design. Stein make that point very clear in his movie. Evolution means that things evolve (change) over time. With this in mind ... there still is no proof that there was NOT an "intellegent designer" at work here. Even the most avid intellectuals are stumped when they get right down to the single cell, or the Big Bang theories.

Email sez ...

"Good for them - unless it was research paper on pseudo-science, mysticism or religion. Intelligent Design has no business in a research paper. Unless you think we should give equal time to every crack-pot idea."

Isn't this the same attitude coming forth from the "Humans are causing global warming" people when their ideas are debated?

And Seamaiden ... If you can provide a link that shows fossil evidence that Man evolved from a lower specie of animal, please do so. Thanks ... :)

Vi
Are you asking me if I agree the human-caused global warming proponents consistently overstate and exaggerate their argument and sweep a lot of the counter science under the rug then yes. It happens anytime you politicize science - I mean look at the debate we're having now regarding creationism vs. evolution. Anytime you see folks attempting to get the mob on their side (ala Al Gore's movie) their claims should be highly suspect - even if their motivations aren't. I'm sure Ben Stein's heart is in the right place - he is allowing his bias to cloud the evidence. There is no debate regarding evolution for two reasons. First, there is no coherent scientific theory that can replace, modify or add to it and second, evolution works. The science built on the principals of natural selection not only provides evidence of the fact of evolution but is being used to extend other science that would collapse if evolution weren't true.

Another words, it wouldn't just be biology that would be gutted if evolution through natural selection were somehow rendered invalid.


One thing I will say in favor of the folks on both sides of the global warming debate - they are arguing in a scientific manner and as far as I know, neither side is saying God did it (or God can fix it).


And I will further add that I have no argument with people saying that God enables evolution and He uses natural selection as the tool. While I don't subscribe to that notion, it is certainly a way to have God in your life without ignoring scientific evidence. Though the idea that God kick-started evolution should still not be taught in science class as there is no evidence for it.

And let's be honest and forthright about something.. if we can prove God exists then what role does faith play? I mean if we know God is real then it ain't no thing if we believe in Him, right? Take away the mystery you take away the mystique.
 

email468

Well-Known Member
And Seamaiden ... If you can provide a link that shows fossil evidence that Man evolved from a lower specie of animal, please do so. Thanks ... :)

Vi
Here's a good place to start...
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

But science books/lectures would be better and more structured if you really want to know. But as SeaMaiden pointed out (and pointed out and pointed out and pointed out) - there could be zero fossil evidence and it wouldn't concern evolution because of genetic evidence.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Here's a good place to start...
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

But science books/lectures would be better and more structured if you really want to know. But as SeaMaiden pointed out (and pointed out and pointed out and pointed out) - there could be zero fossil evidence and it wouldn't concern evolution because of genetic evidence.[/quote]

Thanks for your input, email ... informative as always. :)

Here's something interesting that I found on tracing DNA:

Family History - All DNA Traces Back to Original African Black Man and Woman
 

email468

Well-Known Member
Here's a good place to start...
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

But science books/lectures would be better and more structured if you really want to know. But as SeaMaiden pointed out (and pointed out and pointed out and pointed out) - there could be zero fossil evidence and it wouldn't concern evolution because of genetic evidence.[/quote]

Thanks for your input, email ... informative as always. :)

Here's something interesting that I found on tracing DNA:

Family History - All DNA Traces Back to Original African Black Man and Woman
Very interesting - thanks for the link. I had read something along these lines awhile ago. I could be mistaken but I think one of the reasons it was (relatively) easy to trace human origins this precisely was because we very nearly went extinct so our gene pool was very small for a long while.

But we always have to be ready for new evidence which may lead us down a different path - just the nature of the beast.
 

natrone23

Well-Known Member
"there still is no proof that there was NOT an "intellegent designer" at work here"

Absence of evidence is not evidence

do you see the problem Vi

"There is still no proof that there was NOT any "fairies" at work here



 

medicineman

New Member
If you believe in life on other planets, intelligent life, why can't it be possible that they came here 6,000 years ago and planted a couple of seedling beings (the Adam and Eve scenario) that looked around and decided they needed to get smart fast and started eating apples, ~LOL~.
It is actually a matter of faith. You either have it or you don't. who is correct, who knows. I'm sure we'll know when we stop breathing whether we fade to black or move on to another plain.
I'm in the move on category as I cant believe a creator would allow this short span of life to be it for everyone, after observing the great disparities in life. Position: why would a 10 year old in Iraq get Burned by a bomb and a 10 year old in America go to a private school, Is there any reason to this?
Explain this to me in the fairness doctrine. conclusion: There is an afterlife where one gets to transcend his problems and torture on earth. Also where assholes get to change places with 10 year olds in Iraq.
 
Top