Ben Stein, CBS Sunday Morning commentary

[TENNFOLD1974]

WOW!That's a lot to read

 

[kptvol]

Wrong again.

By that rational I could come up with an hypothesis that the lochness monster exists. My experiment to prove it is looking at all the photographs and listening to eyewitness accounts. Nevermind what could possibly be wrong with the witness accounts or photgraphs I saw, I have my proof. I.E....I'm here, I'm complex, so I must have come from something more complex. Nevermind addressing the question of timelines, evidence against, or what created the creator.

The difference is the hypothesis should be open to being wrong. There shouldn't be any effort to prove, there should only be investigation of the hypothesis. ID looks at all evdience supporting its claim and disregards any that doesn't. The scientific community is very open to teach and make known the holes in Gravitational, Evoutionary, Relativity, etc... This is to a fault almost, because then you get wacko ideas that jump on the shortcomings and wrongly claim it is equal. ID is nothing more than creationism dressed in a bad suit that is driven by an agenda, not scientific inquiry. ID proponents know it can't pass scientific muster, so they try the legal route. It's pathetic.

Teach ID all you want, just keep it out of science classes.

Wrong again. And again, and again...

 

[BigPapaVol]

The first is flat wrong. And the second is confusing two completely different ideas.

Again, playing semantics over the laws of gravity and gravitation because you've studied physics more recently than I. I don't care and it does nothing to bolster your ridiculous support for a weak theory with no empirical justification. Every theory of physics can be tested over and over. Evolution can't and that's an enormous difference in the two. This sort of lame tangent isn't helping you refute that a creator started your precious evolutionary chain.


Nope. Wrong again. We can add this statement as an afterthought to the above list.

The main way a theory becomes law is when it becomes a reliable predictor of physical phenomenon...to the point where it can be calculated.

Newton = Law. Entropy calculations = Law. Einstein = Theory. Evolution = Theory. Newtonian physics is limited to reality. Einstein covers every case, but every case can't be reliably predicted because we are dealing with space-time and it's relationship to mass. Einstein, Evolution, etc...provide utility to addressing scientific phenomenon and has mountains of data supporting their basic tenants. They are far from predictors. Given an objects' mass, height, and starting velocity...I can predict it's time of freefall using Newton.

Again, this is more semantics about which nobody cares and only serves to detract from the holes in shoddy evolution theory. We're talking measurable theories vs. imagined postulation.

It looks like to me you are considering the fact it doesn't explain how life began and a trying your hardest to explain a complete misunderstanding of how gene mutations and gene sequences work as pretty dismissive.

This type of incorrect condescending commentary is where you look silly and your agenda gets out of hand. I'm not pushing on evolution because it's immaterial to me. I don't care whether it's right or wrong. I find the theory to be overwhelmingly inadequate in trying to do what it does. The vast majority of your ilk try as hard has possible to use the weak trash to support that no God can possibly exist. The theory cannot do that. Intelligent Design has serious issues as well, but is far stronger in developing our origins than evolution. You might get off of your own ass and take a class debunking evolution. You might be surprised at the weakness of the gene mutation theories in highly developed species and the sheer inadequacy of evolution to help with origin of the species.

This is patently absurd. You need to do a search on the "Goldilocks Zone" before you take yourself serious with this claim. Wiki has a nice page explaning it.

And taking the size of the universe into account, along with the magic of large numbers, and it is very probable this has happened more than once, on other planets somewhere.

Again, don't care and doesn't help your evolutionary argument in any way. To date, your support for life elsewhere is actually lamer than evolution as our origin argument. Again, I can buy evolution initiated by a greater being. Evolution as origin of life and generating conscience is flimsy as hell.



You guys love to harp on this point over and over and over again at nauseating length. Let me make this as clear and simple as possible so everybody can understand it:

That is all I am saying about any of this. The reasons for evolutionary theory far outweigh the reasons against. If another theory comes along and makes more sense than Evolution, I will happily change camps. It would, however, have a lot of explaining to do for the mountains of evidence in support for evolution. I can sit here and say Evolution may be completely wrong...but given the data supporting it, the chances of it not happening in some form, is effectively zero. Sure I could be wrong and you could be right, but it doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe your claim over another.

The argument I am seeing on this thread is the faith-based default one. You have faith, I can't disprove your position, therefore I am wrong. Not all assertions are on equal ground when the reasoning behind them are compared.

I'm not defaulting to any faith based position and that's your weakness. You're itching to dispel any notions of faith and I'm not arguing from that basis. I'm fine with evolution, even if I believe it's a series of very creative and often weak hypotheses of agenda driven scientists. I believe evolution can be relied upon to some limited degree and have never disputed that. I believe a creator set that entire process in motion and I believe our conscience is an indicator of that.

You can think it's weak forever, but you simply don't want to look for the holes in your own understanding of evolution as the origin of man. That's fine. I can tell you that further debate over the semantics of physics laws and theories isn't helping.

 

[VolByBirth]

I'm not defaulting to any faith based position and that's your weakness. You're itching to dispel any notions of faith and I'm not arguing from that basis. I'm fine with evolution, even if I believe it's a series of very creative and often weak hypotheses of agenda driven scientists. I believe evolution can be relied upon to some limited degree and have never disputed that. I believe a creator set that entire process in motion and I believe our conscience is an indicator of that.

You can think it's weak forever, but you simply don't want to look for the holes in your own understanding of evolution as the origin of man. That's fine. I can tell you that further debate over the semantics of physics laws and theories isn't helping.

I think the disagreement with ID really stems with a persons belief on whether or not you feel it was Creationism repackaged or whether it has a strong set of fundamentals it's built on and appears to be reasonable.

Personally, I side with Evolution and do believe that ID is creationism repackaged. However, there is no way I can prove I'm right to myself or anyone else. So it's a belief I hold -- but don't expect everyone to side with me because of it.

At the same time, as I stated before -- I don't believe the two to be mutually exclusive. Even if our theories are correct (Big Bang, Evolution, etc) at no time does it disprove a greater power. My fear is that some people dismiss science because it contradicts the Bible (adam and eve) -- but science does nothing but prove that if there is a higher power, it is far more amazing than the Bible portrays.

I'm hugely pro-science -- but I don't know what it has to do with faith in a higher power. When including that as part of the argument it makes it too easy to dismiss ID or Evolution.

 

[KB5252]

I think the disagreement with ID really stems with a persons belief on whether or not you feel it was Creationism repackaged or whether it has a strong set of fundamentals it's built on and appears to be reasonable.

Personally, I side with Evolution and do believe that ID is creationism repackaged. However, there is no way I can prove I'm right to myself or anyone else. So it's a belief I hold -- but don't expect everyone to side with me because of it.

At the same time, as I stated before -- I don't believe the two to be mutually exclusive. Even if our theories are correct (Big Bang, Evolution, etc) at no time does it disprove a greater power. My fear is that some people dismiss science because it contradicts the Bible (adam and eve) -- but science does nothing but prove that if there is a higher power, it is far more amazing than the Bible portrays.

I'm hugely pro-science -- but I don't know what it has to do with faith in a higher power. When including that as part of the argument it makes it too easy to dismiss ID or Evolution.

Sure some people dismiss science because of their religious beliefs but those even slightly familiar with science see it's merit.

I see many more people from scientific circles dismiss the chance of their being a higher power (creator) at work because of their scientific background than vice versa.

Your statement about the universe being much more amazing than the Bible states is false as well. The Bible states God and creation is awesome and beyond understanding. That is about as amazing as it gets. Sure we are learning new things about this vast expanse everyday, I just happen to see it as a quest to learn as much as we can about our surroundings.

 

[rjd970]

Every theory of physics can be tested over and over. Evolution can't and that's an enormous difference in the two. This sort of lame tangent isn't helping you refute that a creator started your precious evolutionary chain.

BPV, you are simply wrong about this. I don't know how to better explain it. Evolution has been tested, for over 150 years. Fields like biochemistry, microbiology, DNA, modern genetic theory...even geology, palentology, botany...areas of science that Darwin could have known nothing about...all fit nicely within in the purview of the theory and have provided independent confirmation that it is sound. You're saying all that is equal to a crackpot "theory" a couple of yahoos dreamed up in the last 10 years to repackage creationism is on equal ground.

And again, I am not refuting a creator could have started the evolutionary chain. I am saying ID is far inferior for explaining what happened after abiogenesis.

Again, this is more semantics about which nobody cares and only serves to detract from the holes in shoddy evolution theory. We're talking measurable theories vs. imagined postulation.

It's only semantics to you. To anybody that knows what they are talking about you are wrong. It doesn't detract from anything and only shows your lack of knowledge in the science fields. You are completely misrepresenting basic tenants of evolutionary and confusing two physics theories any first year physics student knows are different. You're the one that used the comparison of physics and evolution, and I am telling you that you don't know what you are talking about....or at the very least, confused about it.

The vast majority of your ilk try as hard has possible to use the weak trash to support that no God can possibly exist. The theory cannot do that. Intelligent Design has serious issues as well, but is far stronger in developing our origins than evolution.

All I can say is I have not done any of that. Until you recognize this, there is nothing I can do to keep you from harping this point. I am not arguing the belief, I am arguing the reasons.

Again, I can buy evolution initiated by a greater being. Evolution as origin of life and generating conscience is flimsy as hell.

You're right. But once again, I haven't said that either.

Please. Please. Please. Show me where I have claimed evolution explains the origin of life. In fact, show me where evolution itself claims that.

I believe a creator set that entire process in motion and I believe our conscience is an indicator of that.

Entire process? Fine. That is your prerogative. ID doesn't say this though, and I don't know why you hold it in such high regard.




I know you believe you're right, and "don't care what anybody else thinks", but if you care to get educated on the merits of Evolution vs. ID, this is a really good place to start, written by a guy that knows more than either of us ever will:

http://pondside.uchicago.edu/cluster/pdf/coyne/Behe, New Republic.pdf

 

[VolByBirth]

Sure some people dismiss science because of their religious beliefs but those even slightly familiar with science see it's merit.

I see many more people from scientific circles dismiss the chance of their being a higher power (creator) at work because of their scientific background than vice versa.

Your statement about the universe being much more amazing than the Bible states is false as well. The Bible states God and creation is awesome and beyond understanding. That is about as amazing as it gets. Sure we are learning new things about this vast expanse everyday, I just happen to see it as a quest to learn as much as we can about our surroundings.

Opinions aren't false unless you can prove them wrong. You can no more prove what's written in the Bible than I can evolution, the big bang, or other scientific theories.

As for what makes it more amazing is, again, opinion. To me, the story of Adam and Eve pales in comparison to the complexity of the human body, atomic structure, and the other intracacies of our world. But -- that is opinion nonetheless.

As for scientists being more likely to disprove a higher power than the opposite. I don't know of any truth to that except just a personal opinion. Personally, I've never heard a scientist claiming that their findings disprove God -- but I'm certain there are some. Much the same goes for the opposite.

 

[KB5252]

Opinions aren't false unless you can prove them wrong. You can no more prove what's written in the Bible than I can evolution, the big bang, or other scientific theories.

Bad choice of words on my part.

As for what makes it more amazing is, again, opinion. To me, the story of Adam and Eve pales in comparison to the complexity of the human body, atomic structure, and the other intracacies of our world. But -- that is opinion nonetheless.
I agree. I don't take many of the stories in the Bible literally. Still I think the Bible covers many of the mysteries well by telling us there are things out there above our ability to comprehend.
As for scientists being more likely to disprove a higher power than the opposite. I don't know of any truth to that except just a personal opinion. Personally, I've never heard a scientist claiming that their findings disprove God -- but I'm certain there are some. Much the same goes for the opposite.

Again bad choice of wording. What i meant to point out was that people of scientific background are much more likely to discount the existence of a higher power because of their scientific nature than the average believer is to discount science because of their beliefs.

See bold above.

 

[rjd970]

As for scientists being more likely to disprove a higher power than the opposite. I don't know of any truth to that except just a personal opinion. Personally, I've never heard a scientist claiming that their findings disprove God -- but I'm certain there are some. Much the same goes for the opposite.

That is exactly right.

The way I look at it, theories like evolution, subparticle physics, ect...do not disprove God's existence, but they do make it possible to not believe.

 

[KB5252]

That is exactly right.

The way I look at it, theories like evolution, subparticle physics, ect...do not disprove God's existence, but they do make it possible to not believe.

Sure, there are many reasons for people to choose not to believe.

I just don't see that evolution and the concept of creation are at odds. There are many possibilities, I see evolution as a possible vehicle for our development. Who says God is not behind that?

I know I will not change minds here, that is not my goal. There are many arguments to be made here, it is complex and not as cut and dry as some try to make it.

 

[rjd970]

I just don't see that evolution and the concept of creation are at odds. There are many possibilities, I see evolution as a possible vehicle for our development. Who says God is not behind that?

On a purely philosophical level, I don't see anything wrong with this. My opinion says there isn't a higher power at work, but to each their own.

The only thing I have been saying is ID is not science, never was science, and shouldn't be taught in science classes. It is necessarily at odds with evolutionary theory, and teaching it in public schools violates the establishment clause. It is creationism dressed differently.