Maybe Ben struck a nerve or two.

re: #1 MandyManners

:)

Let us now pause for a moment of Science!
Paging Killgore...

I have yet to see the film, but the premise that educated and degreed Creationists who have been discriminated is something that should be investigated.

Science is based on discussions and not blocking ideas.

It's a pretty elaborate site. I wonder how many hours were put into it.

I was REALLY disappointed in Ben Stein when I heard about this film.

I used to respect him. All respect now has gone out the window.

I just read that the leftosphere is totally blocking this movie at every turn. It isn't being reviewed, it's being excluded from online databases, etc.

For once, I don't particularly mind. The film is utterly wrongheaded. He has no clue.

re: #6 zombie

I was REALLY disappointed in Ben Stein when I heard about this film.

I used to respect him. All respect now has gone out the window.

I just read that the leftosphere is totally blocking this movie at every turn. It isn't being reviewed, it's being excluded from online databases, etc.

For once, I don't particularly mind. The film is utterly wrongheaded. He has no clue.

Why did he do it?

I wasn't planning on seeing this movie, but if it's creating such a fuss, maybe I will.....

If mainstream science declines to accept intelligent design, it is the fault of the intelligent design advocates, who have not performed the research and theory-building demanded of everyone in the scientific enterprise.

This is a Catch 22 situation, if a researcher was found to favor intelligent design, he is kicked out of the lab...

Ergo no research, no paper...that favors intelligent design.

Get what I mean?

It's a good idea to read some of the fact-checking articles they've posted about claims in the film. For example, Richard Sternberg:

Expelled claims that Sternberg was “terrorized” and that “his life was nearly ruined” when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.

re: #4 Psaturn

I have yet to see the film, but the premise that educated and degreed Creationists who have been discriminated is something that should be investigated.

Science is based on discussions and not blocking ideas.

Yes, based on discussions, and facts. What Stein is promoting is the standard anti-knowledge line: Since we don't know for sure, supernatural explanations are a possibility!

Fine for religious instruction. Not fine for science class.

Next sacred cow of the National Center for Science Education:
Neo-Lyshenkoism aka Global warming aka Climate Change
... along with the discredited Malthusian population hypothesis.

Wonder if similar institutions put in the same effort in debunking the lies and half-truths of Farenheit 9/11, Jesus Camp or Taxi to the Dark Side

re: #8 Sharmuta

Ditto- I liked the commercials on it also- in fact- I'm going to the 7:15pm show tonight! HA

re: #9 Psaturn

This is a Catch 22 situation, if a researcher was found to favor intelligent design, he is kicked out of the lab...

Ergo no research, no paper...that favors intelligent design.

Get what I mean?

You can't scientifically prove the supernatural -- by definition.

You will NEVER be able to prove creationism in a lab.

Creationism is essentially the act of throwing in the towel and ceasing to search for answers.

Watching the Red Wings. Whats happening?

re: #4 Psaturn

Science is based on discussions and not blocking ideas.

Just don't tell the global warming crowd.

Oh Charles. You KNOW where this thread is going.

re: #13 Fenway_Nation

Wonder if similar institutions put in the same effort in debunking the lies and half-truths of Farenheit 9/11, Jesus Camp or Taxi to the Dark Side

That's a different situation. Those movies are just political claptrap and lies. Barely even worth discrediting. Creationism is an assault on the nature of scientific understanding.

god, what a joke.

well, at least he isnt claiming the world is 12,000 years old.

re: #5 MandyManners

It's a pretty elaborate site. I wonder how many hours were put into it.

I haven't seen the movie, not sure if I will - but you're right, it is an elaborate site, and looks like perhaps someone was working on this before the movie started being shown? Anyway - I wonder what it is these folks are afraid of.

re: #6 zombie

Zombie, maybe you should see the film first before making an opinion? Maybe check out why Ben Stein would take this position?

I do understand that you are pro evolution and all that...

But maybe there is something to the idea of Intelligent Design?

I am a Creationist by the virtue that I believe the Jewish Bible...who said that G-d created the Heavens and the Earth and all living things.

I actually found it was harder to believe life could arise from nowhere and then evolve to the way it is...

And I am scientifically trained all they way to Berkeley...

It doesn't matter whether they "expose" Ben Stein or not, the evolutionists are still afraid of even acknowledging anything whatsoever about a creator....PERIOD!

re: #18 joncelli

Oh Charles. You KNOW where this thread is going.

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

re: #6 zombie

I was REALLY disappointed in Ben Stein when I heard about this film.

I used to respect him. All respect now has gone out the window.

I just read that the leftosphere is totally blocking this movie at every turn. It isn't being reviewed, it's being excluded from online databases, etc.

For once, I don't particularly mind. The film is utterly wrongheaded. He has no clue.

re: #7 MandyManners

Why did he do it?

I'm guessing too many people won Ben Stein's money.

re: #24 zombie

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

I'm with you, zombie.

re: #24 zombie

Actually, I find creationism and ID pretty embarrassing. It gives people the impression that all conservatives are anti-science, and in fact it's all predicated on misunderstandings and twisted logic. I just wish conservatives could get past this.

re: #19 zombie

Creationism is an assault on the nature of scientific understanding.

So is global warming and that has nothing to do with religion. In fact- global warming makes certain scientists look like a cult themselves.

re: #22 Psaturn

Zombie, maybe you should see the film first before making an opinion? Maybe check out why Ben Stein would take this position?

I've read enough about it to know what he's proposing.

I am a Creationist by the virtue that I believe the Jewish Bible...who said that G-d created the Heavens and the Earth and all living things.

I actually found it was harder to believe life could arise from nowhere and then evolve to the way it is...

That's a somewhat different issue. Believing in the supernatural ultimate origin of life is...borderline...understandable. Disbelieving in evolution post-creation is not.

re: #6 zombie

I was REALLY disappointed in Ben Stein when I heard about this film.

I used to respect him. All respect now has gone out the window.

I just read that the leftosphere is totally blocking this movie at every turn. It isn't being reviewed, it's being excluded from online databases, etc.

For once, I don't particularly mind. The film is utterly wrongheaded. He has no clue.

You disrespect him because he has the unmitigated audacity to question evolutionist dogma?
How dare he do that!
/HOW DARE HE!

re: #24 zombie

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

OK, so I believe in the evolutionary process, AND I also believe that at the very very beginning of all things, there was a power, God, who created that which makes evolution and the intelligence of human beings possible. So, what does that make me?

re: #31 reine.de.tout

I believe that's what is called Intelligent Design.

re: #11 zombie

Yes, based on discussions, and facts. What Stein is promoting is the standard anti-knowledge line: Since we don't know for sure, supernatural explanations are a possibility!

Fine for religious instruction. Not fine for science class.

But note that in science we do not know how life arose from non living matter...

We do not even know how "evolution" occurs.

We do not even know how or why gender exists, and why it is so prevalent in sexual propagation as opposed to asexual propagation. There is so much energy expended in sexual propagation...someone should ask the question how evolution explains sexual propagation...yet I get silence...everyone assumes someone knows...

In the Torah, G-d creates male and female.

How does evolution explain male and female again?

re: #32 Sharmuta

I believe that's what is called Intelligent Design.

And so how is that anti-science?

I believe in de-evolution

re: #31 reine.de.tout

Pretty much like me; I believe that there was a first cause, and I believe that evolution is the mechanism it uses.

re: #22 Psaturn

In the middle ages they though Rats came from straw, and flies from raw meat. Today we think people like that are crazy. How do you get something from nothing without a creator?
dinged ya for your comment. ;-)

The PROOF section of this anti-Ben Stein website makes me cringe ... like I am listening to an Al Gore Slide show ... NOTE the use of the word CONSENSUS ... repeatedly as though CONSENSUS = PROOF of evolution.

There is no PROOF of evolution. Mutation of species, adaptation to environment ... of course - no argument. But PROOF of interspecies evolution ? NO.

Have we found the "missing link" ?

Have we recreated the formation of life from primordial ooze ? Done the experiment of creating life ... In the laboratory ?

NO.

Consensus is for cowards.

re: #15 zombie

You can't scientifically prove the supernatural -- by definition.

You will NEVER be able to prove creationism in a lab.

Creationism is essentially the act of throwing in the towel and ceasing to search for answers.

zombie, I know you are always quite busy.....but, in some time you might be able to carve out, would you take a look at this? It's about Israel.....

re: #27 joncelli

Actually, I find creationism and ID pretty embarrassing. It gives people the impression that all conservatives are anti-science, and in fact it's all predicated on misunderstandings and twisted logic. I just wish conservatives could get past this.

I agree with you 100%. It is the Achilles Heel of conservatism in this country.

re: #24 zombie

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

No, you're not alone -- I've never made a secret of the fact that I'm not a fan of intelligent design or whatever it's being called this month.

I still respect Ben Stein a lot for his great pieces on the heroism of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I agree that he jumped the rails with this ID promotion.

Who or what created the Primordial Soup?
Who or what created the Big Bang?

Why can't we ask these questions in a science class?
Why?

What are the evolutionists so afraid of?

I just don't believe "Science!" has all the answers. It's great, it's made huge advances in life for all of us, but it can't explain everything.

Maybe it's why it's called the Mystery of Life.

re: #29 zombie

That's a somewhat different issue. Believing in the supernatural ultimate origin of life is...borderline...understandable. Disbelieving in evolution post-creation is not.

I do not disbelieve in evolution post creation...

That is the issue, we are dealing with origins issue, where we come from...

Evolution as observed today is a given...

It is the application of today's observed evolution to the past, to explain the origins of species, that is a totally different subject.

This is the confusion today, we are talking about two different subjects: The origin of species and the origin of life.....versus the observation of life today.

re: #31 reine.de.tout

OK, so I believe in the evolutionary process, AND I also believe that at the very very beginning of all things, there was a power, God, who created that which makes evolution and the intelligence of human beings possible. So, what does that make me?

a theistic evolutionist

/which in some cirlces is considered an oxymoron of sorts

re: #28 Sharmuta

So is global warming and that has nothing to do with religion. In fact- global warming makes certain scientists look like a cult themselves.

You are correct as well. Global Warming is a complete fraud, and essentially cult.

But attacking global warming in no way resuscitates the accuracy of creationism.

People get very upset with me when I say I am not an evolutionist. They practically go berserk. Smoke starts flowing from their nostrils. They seem offended, dismayed and aghast.

I wonder why they care? What difference does it make to them?

/ but it's not a religion

Hi, mama....you okay after the earthquake? :)

Without the public school system, this wouldn't even be a problem.

You send your kids to a school of your choice that you paid for. They choose whether or not to teach creationism/I.D., and each school's records for turning out successful students stands on its own.

re: #24 zombie

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

Relax. A true scientist doesn't take heresay over observation. The one you will be bumping up against is Louis Pasteur, who was an observer par excellence.
There is a reason he is unknown to today's generation. His entire life's work remains an inconvenient truth.

Who or what created the Primordial Soup?

Did it just come out of nothing!?

I have no doubt that academia suffers from all sorts of human foibles, just as the rest of society.

However, Stein's work here is, no doubt, better labeled as "polemics" than investigative journalism.

Nevertheless, there is some (considerable) hypocrisy amongst the intelligentsia in attacking Stein's movie.... since many of them so openly embrace Michael Moore's movies (which are also polemical and not serious journalism.)

I'm going to have to come down on the side of the evolutionists. As soon as folks start talking about vast conspiracies, I toss them in/out with Teh Troofers. Unless evolution can be accepted as God's working method for intelligence design, Ben and friends might as well be talking about silver saucers and X-files, in my humble opinion anyway.

re: #48 Ma Sands

Hi, mama....you okay after the earthquake? :)

Oh I'm good - it was so weird tho to feel that in Wisconsin. I thought the dog was jumping on the bed. Except the dogs were over at my daughter's house.

So then I just went back to sleep :)

Google Marget Sanger eugenics then get back to us. See what she had to say about the need to limit the population of people with limited potential.

The site left quite a bit to be desired.

Also the question of who/what created life still remains unless you have a religious background.

Stein already mentioned this on Medved's show -- it's sheer rubbish. They haven't debunked anything...see the film for yourself; this site is trying to get people to stay away from the film, and just listen to them (Stalinists anyone?).

Most stunning is Dawkin's own admission that life could not have arisen by chance; he says it's possible aliens seeded the planet! And they say ID proponents are nuts.

re: #24 zombie

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

Nope.
Thing is - one can be scientist and a Christian, without being a Creationist ...

Many creationists understand that there is micro evolution and adaptation...

they do not accept macro evolution, ie species change

IIRC

re: #51 DesertSage

Who or what created the Primordial Soup?

Campbells, silly Sage. Campbells.

I be more impressed if the National Science Center had actually done something to improve the state of science education in schools.

(As far as I'm concerned, Stein jumped the rails when he hosted the reality show, "World's Most Smartest Model". He's an easy target. Actually fixing the educational system, and teaching kids science---now that would really be impressive.)

re: #41 Charles

homology

generations

malaria

malaria generations

human generations

re: #56 Richard Romano

Stein already mentioned this on Medved's show -- it's sheer rubbish. They haven't debunked anything...see the film for yourself; this site is trying to get people to stay away from the film, and just listen to them (Stalinists anyone?).

Most stunning is Dawkin's own admission that life could not have arisen by chance; he says it's possible aliens seeded the planet! And they say ID proponents are nuts.

Where did the aliens come from?

re: #28 Sharmuta

So is global warming and that has nothing to do with religion. In fact- global warming makes certain scientists look like a cult themselves.

I see we are going to make this into a science-fest...

Scientists are fully capable of cult-thinking... like every other person.

However, man made/enhanced global warming is very well founded in basic science and is itself not "cult" like. The body of scientific knowledge accumulated over the last 5 centuries is what it is... an accumulation of observations and ever increasingly accurate theories.

An education society.

I laugh.

re: #59 MandyManners

Campbells, silly Sage. Campbells.

Ughh....who created Campbells?

Scientific American recently featured a great article entitled, Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...about intelligent design and evolution

Maybe a past 'Global Warming' created evolution?

re: #6 zombie

Zombie- You run a nice site showing the obnoxious behavior of the far-left. Darwinism is in essence the philosophy that motivates these fanatics.

'Expelled' is about academic freedom to challenge speculative dogma on the origins of life. As a scientist who has published over 30 peer-reviewed articles, I am a bit offended when people argue that you can't be a scientist and challenge Darwinism.

You should at least see the movie before you pass judgment you might be surprised.

re: #59 MandyManners

Campbells, silly Sage. Campbells.

But I haven't seen it on shelves for a while. Didn't taste all that good either.

I want to ask one question.

What difference does it make? Seriously?

That's EXACTLY what Intelligent design suggests. It doesn't overturn or reject many of the obvious and direct observations of evolutionary forces.

I think many people continue to confuse ID with some goofy sort of Bible literalism wherein you must believe the world was created in 7 planetary rotation days.

It is nothing of the sort.
re: #53 ducktrapper

re: #30 DesertSage

You disrespect him because he has the unmitigated audacity to question evolutionist dogma?

Yes! I do.

And it's not dogma if it's based on 300 years of accumulated data. It's scientific theory.

And the concept of "scientific theory" is mankind's greatest achievement.

re: #65 DesertSage

Ughh....who created Campbells?

People who wanted soup.

re: #66 gmsc

OK, since you're jumping on the anti-Stein bandwagon, why don't you answer my question-

Who or what created the Primordial Soup?

Huh?

It's not that creationists were expelled, it's that they've flunked.

Intelligent Design makes zero testable claims, and its entire premise is based on arguing "from the gaps" - which is identical to the tactics used by 9/11 truthers.

Evolution has over a century of scientific scrutiny, and each new biological discover only further confirms Darwin's descent with modification. Evolution has even anticipated and predicated new fossil discoveries, which is simply amazing.

Pope John Paul the II even endorsed evolution in his address "The Truth Cannot Contradict Truth".

re: #62 MandyManners

Where did the aliens come from?

Mexico. It was before the fence.....

re: #69 JeremyR

But I haven't seen it on shelves for a while. Didn't taste all that good either.

No Campbell's soups in your grocery store?

re: #31 reine.de.tout

OK, so I believe in the evolutionary process, AND I also believe that at the very very beginning of all things, there was a power, God, who created that which makes evolution and the intelligence of human beings possible. So, what does that make me?

That's a reasonable position. I have no argument with that.

re: #75 laxmatt1984

Evolution has over a century of scientific scrutiny,

Zombie says its 300 years.

re: #70 mama winger

I want to ask one question.

What difference does it make? Seriously?

None. Its just another tool to teach, like the Jesus Video.

re: #72 zombie

But a "theory" is just that- a theory.

re: #57 yma o hyd

Exactly. I had a physics professor at Virginia Tech who took just that position -- science and belief in God need not be incompatible. He also pointed out that most early scientists proudly considered themselves to be carrying out the work of exposing God's plan for the edification of mankind.

re: #24 zombie

Looks like I'm just about all alone over here in science land!

You're not alone Zombie. :)

It's always been my position that creationism is theology and belongs *only* in a religious instruction class.

re: #76 JeremyR

Mexico. It was before the fence.....

Who created the fence?

re: #78 zombie

That's a reasonable position. I have no argument with that.

Why argue at all? Seriously? What difference does it make to you what someone else believes?

crap I'm out of pop corn

What does one do when one believes G-d created Evolution?

Ben Stein (or BS for short) is almost certainly funnin' with suckers on both sides of an issue that is somewhat difficult to resolve. If you take Ben Stein too serioulsly or too literally you will literally be making a serious mistake. Up until now the promotions for the movie had not registered in my brain, but now that I know Ben is throwing stuff at the fan it moves up to must see.

re: #32 Sharmuta

I believe that's what is called Intelligent Design.

No, that's not Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design posits that that there was no evolution by natural selection. And that God guided each step in the history of life -- rather than simply create the universe and the rules within it and let it run on its own.

re: #77 MandyManners

No Campbell's soups in your grocery store?

Sure we have Campbells, just none of their Primordial Soup. Tomato, and Chicken noodle are both big hits arround here.

re: #72 zombie

Yes! I do.

And it's not dogma if it's based on 300 years of accumulated data. It's scientific theory.

And the concept of "scientific theory" is mankind's greatest achievement.

After 300 years of accumulated data, you'd think that they would have figured out where the primordial soup came from....but they haven't. Until they do, it's just a "theory". Theories are not fact. I deal in facts.

#55 Perplexed

Good point.

I believe in evolution, but I also believe that the Eugenics Movement, back in the early 19th to mid 20th Centuries had an unhealthy influence on it, and the way it was taught. And I think the eugenics movement's cruelty towards what it considered the "unfit" and eagerness to meddle in marriage laws (the progressive movment of the time was actually quite happy to see government in the bedroom), was the real reason behind the original split between evolutionists and many religious believers.

Curse you Charles for starting this thread!

I was already overwhelmed with things to do today, and now you've got me caught up in this!

re: #70 mama winger

I want to ask one question.

What difference does it make? Seriously?

One difference is in purpose or conversely lack of purpose, accident.

re: #46 zombie

You are correct as well. Global Warming is a complete fraud, and essentially cult.

But attacking global warming in no way resuscitates the accuracy of creationism.

Creationism is silly & easily defeated.Man & the dinosaurs never lived together.Carbon dating tells us that dinosaur fossils are far older than the first evidence of man.
The whole thing was not made in six days.
But unless,I totally misunderstand Intelligent Design, there is no reason why it is not compatible with evolution.
Am I missing something?

re: #90 JeremyR

Sure we have Campbells, just none of their Primordial Soup. Tomato, and Chicken noodle are both big hits arround here.

I wonder what Primordial Soup would taste like.

re: #89 zombie

Well- I'm with reine.de.tout.

I also don't believe in gravity. Hence, my chest will always stand at attention.

re: #84 MandyManners

Who created the fence?

The Bekaert wire company in Rome Georga.

I have watched Killgore Trout defend scientific method and evolution frequently. Folks have made up their minds and decided what camp they are in. I will say I'm surprised at the number of folks who are Creationists in Texas ( I live there). I am not a Creationist or Young Earth believer. I can allow room for someone to suggest Intelligent Design as a theory. That's it. My children attend public school and I check what is in the science books and ask questions. So far no conflicts.

Micro evolution is well established science.

Abiogenesis and common descent on the other hand explain everything and explain nothing. Neither can be observed or reproduced. Just don't dare question them or your career is over.

I wanna' know what happened to unicorns.

a review from Answers in Genisis

re: #98 mama winger

I detect, um....an undercurrent? :)

re: #99 JeremyR

The Bekaert wire company in Rome Georga.

Who created wire?

re: #102 MandyManners

I wanna' know what happened to unicorns.

And pixies!

re: #62 MandyManners

Where did the aliens come from?

Code Pink

One day I decided to Google search "Intelligent Design", in order to learn what it was about. After a couple of hours I came up with the conclusion that there is no there, there. ID is a dumbass way for conservatives to attempt to present an alternative to evolution. It fails. Any conservative who attempts to go with ID is going wind up embarrassed.

I haven't seen this movie and I am not sure what the fuss is about but I will say there are plenty of "objective" scientists who completely discount any other explanations.
It takes all kinds, I guess.

re: #82 joncelli

Exactly. I had a physics professor at Virginia Tech who took just that position -- science and belief in God need not be incompatible.

Agree... there is no necessary contradiction in the two.

He also pointed out that most early scientists proudly considered themselves to be carrying out the work of exposing God's plan for the edification of mankind.

Arguably the greatest of scientists, Isaac Newton, has had a large part of his life history redacted by modern writers of textbooks; after founding the essential heart of classical physics he spent quite a bit of effort analyzing the Bible....

re: #94 paint-right

One difference is in purpose or conversely lack of purpose, accident.

that is true.

I believe life was created with purpose, intent, and as far as humans go, with inalienable rights originating from its Creator.

re: #81 Sharmuta

Wow, you completely misunderstand the meaning of the word "theory". A theory is not used in the sense of a grammar school science project - that is, an idea, but rather something that unites and explains facts. A theory is more than a mere fact, it is something that explains natural phenomenon.

These 6 things Scientific American posts are just trivial garbage. Not one of these 6 things address the core message of Ben Steins film. Not one of these 6 things actually discusses or refutes the tenants of Intelligent Design.

It is more like a catty Paris Hilton whiney he-said, she-said hissy fit.

I would expect better from Scientific American

Kinda makes me wonder what sort of "scholars" have taken over such a venerable publication.

re: #66 gmsc

Is sickle cell anemia an incomplete adaptation at resistance to malaria?

re: #106 Sharmuta

And pixies!

The Bible does mention unicorns.

re: #96 MandyManners

I wonder what Primordial Soup would taste like.

I hear it tastes like chicken.

re: #33 Psaturn

But note that in science we do not know how life arose from non living matter...

We do not even know how "evolution" occurs.

We do not even know how or why gender exists, and why it is so prevalent in sexual propagation as opposed to asexual propagation. There is so much energy expended in sexual propagation...someone should ask the question how evolution explains sexual propagation...yet I get silence...everyone assumes someone knows...

In the Torah, G-d creates male and female.

How does evolution explain male and female again?

I will not waste my time with these questions which have been answered in detail a million times before.

The mere fact that we do not know how life arose from non-living matter does not mean that it necessarily has a supernatural explanation.

Caving into, and celebrating, our current state of ignorance is not a valid scientific principle.

#62 MandyManners

Well, yes, that does raise some interesting questions, doesn't it? Such as where did the aliens come from, how did they get there and why has every vestige of their presumably superior civilization vanished without a trace, and how did they evolve, or did somebody just seed them, and, if so, who seeded the seeders, and does Dawkins actually expect us to believe such a load of hooey? Let's face it, this is sillier than believing in any sort of creation myth.

re: #96 MandyManners

I wonder what Primordial Soup would taste like.

I was thinking about that, but unabler to come up with anything good to put with it. Considering that all life must have come from it, immagine if you took acid and desolved a little of everything into it, then neutralized the acid...

Better yet, a McDonalds hamburger under cooked with out ketchup or mustard.

re: #81 Sharmuta

But a "theory" is just that- a theory.

First, evolution is a fact. It's natural selection that is the theory of operation.

Second, try learning what theory means in a scientific context before you use the term to expose your ignorance.

Isaac Asimov was right once again: "Creationists make it sound as though a ´theory´ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

re: #72 zombie

based on 300 years of accumulated datasophistry

/sophistry

Darwin believed Sam Wilberforce(son of Wiliiam Wilberforce) was based more on science than Huxley in the debate declared a winner by Huxley's friends because of his sophistry.

It's all about slavery.

It led through Wallace and Professor Karl Haushofer of the new Geopolitik.

re: #107 opnion

Code Pink

I don't know why but, I suddenly have this image of Sigourney Weaver.

re: #102 MandyManners

I wanna' know what happened to unicorns.

You mean Charlie?

He went to Candy Mountain.

re: #38 fountainhead

The PROOF section of this anti-Ben Stein website makes me cringe ... like I am listening to an Al Gore Slide show ... NOTE the use of the word CONSENSUS ... repeatedly as though CONSENSUS = PROOF of evolution.

There is no PROOF of evolution. Mutation of species, adaptation to environment ... of course - no argument. But PROOF of interspecies evolution ? NO.

Have we found the "missing link" ?

Have we recreated the formation of life from primordial ooze ? Done the experiment of creating life ... In the laboratory ?

NO.

Consensus is for cowards.

Yawn.

re: #105 MandyManners

Who created wire?

You are starting to sound like my kids when they were three.

re: #102 MandyManners

I wanna' know what happened to unicorns.

they jumped in the water and became narwhals

re: #112 laxmatt1984

Well- excuse me. My dictionary shows multiple definitions.

The state of science education in this country has gone steadily downtown since the atheistic LEFT progressives took control of the schools, and shows NO SIGN of restoring correct scientific discipline.

Students are not taught the math they need, the patience and diligence needed for long term observation and testing that is needed in science. It's all razz-ma-tazz, flashy fluffy presentations for people who been trained for three-minute attention spans. Schools are pushing Neo-Lysenkoism, teaching students that Al Gore, a half-educated politician, is more improtant than scientists who've devoted their careers to the study of weather, climate studies and analysis of ACTUAL data, not easily manipulated computer models. The LEFT is teaching nothing more than plain old superstition - that things happen willy-nilly with no history or cause and effect. With that, people run like Chicken Little from one crisis to another, easily fooled and frightened by one crisis afetr another.

And as usual, who gets the blame for this abysmal situation, the decades now of the Left's March Through the Institutions?

Well if it's pissing a bunch of leftist's off, then it must be good. Thier actin' like Ben Stien just took a hot-wet squat in the Arugula section at 'Whole Food's', it's got to be good.

re: #111 mama winger

that is true.

I believe life was created with purpose, intent, and as far as humans go, with inalienable rights originating from its Creator.

me too

re: #89 zombie

Zombie-

You have bought into the far-left media's definition of intelligent design that it is re-hashed creationism One can be an agnostic or even atheist and argue ID is a viable theory.

re: #66 gmsc

Scientific American recently featured a great article entitled, Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...about intelligent design and evolution

Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated.

By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."

/isn't evolution still a theory?

#102 MandyManners

The answer to what happened to the unicorns (and griffins, and dragons) is answered in Walt Disney's Fantasia 2000, in the Noah's Ark sequence. Go out and rent/buy or borrow a copy today!

re: #116 tripster

I hear it tastes like chicken.

LOL! With carrots?

re: #127 Sharmuta

Well, with all respect, don't expose your jaw dropping ignorance.

re: #87 Celtic Templar

What does one do when one believes G-d created Evolution?

What does one do when one believes God created DNA?

I won't have time to follow this thread, but I see problems on both sides:

The Creationists discard scientific evidence. Because every last detail isn't worked, out, they consider those major defects, and completely reject scientific evidence for evolution and for a Big Bang. They can't accept anything other than a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The Evolutionists and far too many scientists reject any idea of a Creator; everything had to be the result of random occurrences. The fact that the existence of a Creator cannot be proven or disproven, makes it not a scientific question, doesn't bother them. They have their own religion, and it is atheism.

There are plenty of people in the middle who take a looser interpretation of Genesis. G-d created the universe and the physical laws, and guided its development, and the development of life. The Creationists cannot accept the looser interpretation of Genesis, and the Evolutionists cannot accept even the possibility of guidance by a Creator.

Gerald Scrhoeder has written several books from this viewpoint.

The thing is, there are religious reasons to accept the looser interpretation of Genesis. Psalm 90 indicates G-d's sense of time isn't the same as ours:
"A million years are like a day in Thy sight; like a watch that passes in the night". Kabbalists have taken this further and come up with age of the universe of 15 billion years and life on Earth of 2.5 billion.

Given this, Creationism, or Intelligent Design, don't belong in science classes, as the existence of a Creator isn't a scientific question.
I'd go for a statement like "Nothing in science precludes the existence of a Creator; the evidence we will present shows how things happened, not why, or whether there was guidance." But I don't see either side accepting this.

But both sides are so stuck on their religious viewpoints, and I wonder how many lizards, even, made it to the end of this.

Religion has evolved over the entire span of mankind on the earth, and it somehow cannot be shaken from our own sentient awareness.

How can this "spiritual awareness" be discarded in exchange for 100 years of counting fruit flies ? re: #79 mama winger

re: #111 mama winger

that is true.

I believe life was created with purpose, intent, and as far as humans go, with inalienable rights originating from its Creator.

Cows have inalienable rights too, among them are BBQ sauce, Ketchup, pickles and mustard. That to ensure these rights, fast food joints are formed....

re: #42 DesertSage

Who or what created the Primordial Soup?
Who or what created the Big Bang?

Why can't we ask these questions in a science class?
Why?

What are the evolutionists so afraid of?

We're afraid of religious extremists hijacking our educational system and destroying our position of leadership in the biological sciences.

Intelligent Design is aggressively anti-American in this sense.

re: #117 zombie

celebrating, our current state of ignorance is not a valid scientific principle.

I celebrate my current state of ignorance. I sing, I twirl, I make paper cut-out dolls and hang them in the window. I blow up balloons and put on the Four Tops. I tap dance and do the hustle.

re: #118 TalkinKamel

#62 MandyManners

Well, yes, that does raise some interesting questions, doesn't it? Such as where did the aliens come from, how did they get there and why has every vestige of their presumably superior civilization vanished without a trace, and how did they evolve, or did somebody just seed them, and, if so, who seeded the seeders, and does Dawkins actually expect us to believe such a load of hooey? Let's face it, this is sillier than believing in any sort of creation myth.

I wonder what David Icke has to say about Dawkins.

re: #122 MandyManners

I don't know why but, I suddenly have this image of Sigourney Weaver.

That was one great flick

re: #98 mama winger

I also don't believe in gravity. Hence, my chest will always stand at attention.

Heee... that quote is worthy of a thread header...

re: #119 JeremyR

I was thinking about that, but unabler to come up with anything good to put with it. Considering that all life must have come from it, immagine if you took acid and desolved a little of everything into it, then neutralized the acid...

Better yet, a McDonalds hamburger under cooked with out ketchup or mustard.

Nasty. Just nasty.

That's quite a scientific response there zombie

re: #124 zombie

re: #137 Kosh's Shadow

Intelligent design is a middle of the road theory that allows for both viewpoints to co-exist.

re: #132 Killian Bundy

/isn't evolution still a theory?

So's the Theory of Relativity - but it is completely accepted by scientists.

re: #49 gmsc

Without the public school system, this wouldn't even be a problem.

You send your kids to a school of your choice that you paid for. They choose whether or not to teach creationism/I.D., and each school's records for turning out successful students stands on its own.

Agreed. All students who learn Intelligent Design will be unemployable in the sciences.

A sad waste of human potential.

I see the evolutionists (or the anti-creationist's) people here are spinning like crazy....but not one of them has answered my simple question:

WHO CREATED THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP!

Just answer that one, that's all.

re: #145 MandyManners

Nasty. Just nasty.

It doesn't get much nastier.

re: #128 wanumba

remember when everything began to be claimed to be "natural" and "organic'? well, this week, this very week, i tells ya, the new word is "green" and everything is now or will be next week GREEN. It's the new organic.

all hail the new bandwagon,

all aboard!

re: #149 zombie

Agreed. All students who learn Intelligent Design will be unemployable in the sciences.

A sad waste of human potential.

HA! Tell that to my daughter who is one semester away from being a nurse practitioner, Master's Degree level, charge nurse in an ICU unit.

Ben tricked Dawkins into telling the truth. That must have really pissed him off.

re: #123 DesertSage

You mean Charlie?

He went to Candy Mountain.

Charlie's from Brooklyn.

re: #147 George Slivers

Intelligent design is a middle of the road theory that allows for both viewpoints to co-exist.

So that's the equivalent of "guided evolution"? Would the ID people be willing to accept the statement I gave in my earlier note:
"Nothing in science precludes the existence of a Creator; the evidence we will present shows how things happened, not why, or whether there was guidance."

re: #135 laxmatt1984

I'll try, but with zero respect, you might want to work on your etiquette.

re: #125 JeremyR

You are starting to sound like my kids when they were three.

Dagnabit! You caught on.

re: #131 George Slivers

re: #131 George Slivers

I wonder if you would consider a judge appointed by George W. Bush and put up for consideration by Rick Santorum a left winger. Here's what he has to say about intelligent design.

[Link: www.pamd.uscourts.gov...]

It appears to me the arguments over this come down to - where is it one would appropriately study Creationism/Intelligent ID? Religion class or Science Class?

Religion class, of course, will teach that God made the universe and all it it. Science class will teach that life progressed through an evolutionary process. I don't see that belief in one automatically means you can't believe in the other. If God created the universe and all that's in it, then He created the mechanism by which intelligent life would evolve. I would prefer that religious indoctrination be kept out of public classrooms - I will see to it that my child gets the religious instruction of my faith, the public schools do not have to do that.

re: #153 mama winger

HA! Tell that to my daughter who is one semester away from being a nurse practitioner, Master's Degree level, charge nurse in an ICU unit.

At one of the most prestigious hospitals in the Midwest.

your prejudices are showing, zombie.

re: #139 JeremyR

Cows have inalienable rights too, among them are BBQ sauce, Ketchup, pickles and mustard. That to ensure these rights, fast food joints are formed....

I prefer the rights of pigs to KC Masterpiece

re: #91 DesertSage

After 300 years of accumulated data, you'd think that they would have figured out where the primordial soup came from....but they haven't. Until they do, it's just a "theory". Theories are not fact. I deal in facts.

Ahem - the scientific instruments we have available now were not available three hundred years ago, not even a hundred years ago, so figuring things out by now is still a very big ask.
Also - something easily overlooked - neither does biology and evolution start independently from what is going on in the universe around us (and which has only been open to our gaze and scientific discoveries during the last fifty years or so, disregarding the telescopes of Galilei), nor does Genesis start with the creation of the plants, animals and humans ...

Cosmologists and astrophysicists are more convinced that there is a governing mind behind this all than evolutionary biologists.

Just one little question that has always nagged at the back of my mind:

Where did God come from?

I'll hang up now, and listen for your answer ...

re: #126 paint-right

they jumped in the water and became narwhals

Cool. I've never heard of them before today.

re: #150 DesertSage

I see the evolutionists (or the anti-creationist's) people here are spinning like crazy....but not one of them has answered my simple question:

WHO CREATED THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP!

Just answer that one, that's all.

ASKED AND ANSWERED. Mandy said it was Campbells Soup. End of discussion. ;-)

re: #51 DesertSage

Who or what created the Primordial Soup?

Did it just come out of nothing!?

Possibly, yes.

Intelligent design is the cessation of seeking knowledge. It is caving in to our current state of ignorance and no longer seeking scientific advancement.

It is medieval.

re: #132 Killian Bundy

/isn't evolution still a theory?

See #120

re: #164 auldtrafford

Just one little question that has always nagged at the back of my mind:

Where did God come from?

I'll hang up now, and listen for your answer ...

I'll ask Him when I see Him and get back to you :)

re: #140 zombie

We're afraid of religious extremists hijacking our educational system and destroying our position of leadership in the biological sciences.

Intelligent Design is aggressively anti-American in this sense.

Not allowing people submit opposing theories...or to even question the prevailing theory....is Fascist.
Totally anti-American.

re: #158 MandyManners

Dagnabit! You caught on.

LOL.

re: #133 TalkinKamel

#102 MandyManners

The answer to what happened to the unicorns (and griffins, and dragons) is answered in Walt Disney's Fantasia 2000, in the Noah's Ark sequence. Go out and rent/buy or borrow a copy today!

I remember seeing Fantasia when I was a kid. Did they remake it and screw it up?

re: #167 zombie

It is medieval.

So are a lot of things. Doesn't make them wrong or bad.

re: #149 zombie

Listen, I know something about this. My experience. You think Darwin based 'scientists' have a right to still from the non-Darwin based?

Btw, they stole. But they never made a successful product.

You sound like you are bragging about how your side can financially cheat those of us with amazing ability; abilities that make break throughs that could effect the health of a large portion of human kind.

Ben Stein is very funny and a great writer.

That being said, the whole concept of "intelligent design" is a syllogism.

It begins with a "wow isn't the universe amazing" premise, and then assumes that because things are so complex that something must have "created" them.

That's not an argument and not even part of the scientific process of offering a hypothesis and testing it.

That's a conclusion based on... whimsy at best, and trickery at worst.

Since Ben Stein is a committed good guy, I think he's mistaken in his enthusiasm for this cause.

The problem is with definitions and concepts.

In the matter of the beginning of everything, no matter what a scientist offers, the creationist says, "yeah, but what about right before that?"

In the matter of morality, the creationist argues that there can be no moral right and wrong unless there is a higher being, because anything less is moral relativism. That's a reverse engineered argument. Just because you believe (wish) there should be an absolute, that doesn't create the thing that would make it possible. And lack of a creator doesn't justify Nazism, or communism, even if the majority of people in a country want it. Those are systems which are terrible in their own right.

Ben needs to go back to judging the smartestest models, and writing killer op-ed pieces in the WSJ on economics, and saying "Bueller"... "Bueller"...

re: #108 Future Blogger

Why don't you google 'islamofascism' while your at it and see if you get a fair viewpoint.

re: #55 Perplexed

Google Marget Sanger eugenics then get back to us. See what she had to say about the need to limit the population of people with limited potential.

Boooooooo.

There is no connection between Margaret Sanger and the veracity of evolution.

re: #102 MandyManners

I wanna' know what happened to unicorns.

They happily graze in their secret gardens, where only truly pure virgins can see them ...

re: #152 paint-right
It drives me NUTS every single time I walk into the produce section of the grocery store. It's wall to wall fruits and vegetables and one half of it has a sign designating that part of as, "ORGANIC."

re: #162 opnion

I prefer the rights of pigs to KC Masterpiece

What about Chickens? since we are writing a bill of animals rights to send to PETA.

re: #169 mama winger

Think I'll not hold my breath on that ...

still=steal

re: #143 opnion

That was one great flick

Reminds me of giving birth.

re: #177 zombie

I have responded to you on many posts, but you have never responded back.

re: #181 auldtrafford

Think I'll not hold my breath on that ...

It won't be long. I have Lupus.

Actually, I teach astronomy and math at an online university (which is what I should be working on now).
I give the viewpoint I gave above, that the two approaches are compatible, and let the students (adults) make up their own mind. Their grades depend on how well they can explain the scientific evidence and theories, but I don't try to force the religious aspects on them.

re: #167 zombie

Possibly, yes.

Intelligent design is the cessation of seeking knowledge. It is caving in to our current state of ignorance and no longer seeking scientific advancement.

It is medieval.

And possibly, no.
So let's ask MORE questions....not less!

re: #167 zombie

Possibly, yes.

Intelligent design is the cessation of seeking knowledge. It is caving in to our current state of ignorance and no longer seeking scientific advancement.

It is medieval.

ID is not the end of the discussion. Research can answer for us how things were made and why. There is still much to learn, macro evolution is still not the answer.

re: #74 DesertSage

OK, since you're jumping on the anti-Stein bandwagon, why don't you answer my question-

Who or what created the Primordial Soup?

Huh?

Forces of nature.

But if you believe everything had to be created by a god or gods, who or what created those gods?

The first step on the path of Knowledge is to admit you know nothing.

re: #71 fountainhead

That's EXACTLY what Intelligent design suggests. It doesn't overturn or reject many of the obvious and direct observations of evolutionary forces.

I think many people continue to confuse ID with some goofy sort of Bible literalism wherein you must believe the world was created in 7 planetary rotation days.

It is nothing of the sort.

Well then it's six of one and a half dozen of the other. Something tells me that there's more to it than that. It may all be miraculous but look around, to me, there's a lot of unintelligent design. Mosquitoes, lice, HIV virus? I could go on but it begins to sound like a malevolent intelligence. Besides, when you start to personify a deity and give it human qualities and desires, you're actually talking paganism aren't you?

re: #157 Sharmuta

I'll try, but with zero respect, you might want to work on your etiquette.

yes, i too noted his evaluation of yoour 'jaw dropping ignorance

no respect at all in my opinion

ben may be wrong-headed but he ain't all wrong about the contempt

re: #178 yma o hyd

They happily graze in their secret gardens, where only truly pure virgins can see them ...

Wonder how lonely they get.

I don't think anyone is being prevented from questioning current science.
From the link:

"Actually, intelligent design is talked about in academia. Teaching about intelligent design in higher education institutions is not forbidden, or censured, and in fact, new courses are added every year. Indeed, the intelligent design-promoting web site ResearchIntelligentDesign.org proudly lists “100+ universities and colleges” that officially include “intelligent design in their lesson plans”. These courses generally examine intelligent design objectively and in an appropriate context, and their instructors do so openly. So intelligent design has, in fact, entered academia, although not quite in the fashion its advocates might prefer. What they seek, of course, is for intelligent design to be accepted as a valid scientific alternative to evolution. They have failed to make a convincing case for it, yet they seem to believe that they have an entitlement to a place in academia."

ID at the Academy: [Link: www.researchintelligentdesign.org...]

re: #156 Kosh's Shadow

Yes

Michale Behe one of the main proponents of ID argues God-directed common descent. ID only challenges the argument that life evolved strictly by a chance driven process.

#119 JeremyR

MMMMMmmm, primordial soup! Yummy!

I would have to be something rich and meaty, with plenty of mushrooms, and rice, or maybe noodles---yum!

#128 wanumba

Yes, I know. As I stated earlier, I'd be far more impressed if the Science Education people had fixed the way math and science are taught in the schools. Going after Ben Stein is small potatoes. (As I said, he proved himself to be a brain-dead sleaze with that silly model show. Really, if they want to disprove his theories, just play some clips from the show! (Ben Stein, talking to stupid young male model, with botoxed biceps) "Well, Mookie, when we saw you trying to sell those beach thongs, we didn't really feel that you felt the part! The world's bestest, smartest model must really feel what he's selling! It's a hard job, and you must give it your all. . . blah, blah, blah."

Trust me, nobody would ever take Ben Stein seriously, ever again. I certainly can't.

And, of course, it is the left which is responsible for the wreckage of education, scientific or otherwise, in our schools. I know quite a number of people at my church have decided to homeschool their kids---not because evil evolution is taught in the public schools, but because no science whatsoever is being taught in them! (At least the ones in my district). Or, what is being taught is laughably inaccurate.

It's a deep problem, and just debunking Ben Stein (all too easy) and creationists, isn't going to accomplish very much. Fixing the school system will.

P.S. I've believed, for a long time, that the left doesn't really believe in evolution either, except when they can use it to smack "Christianistas" over the head with, or push some point of their own.

re: #3 EC Marm

IO took the comments for me to get a mention? You guys are slow.

If you think of yourself as a fan of zombietime, keep in mind that I consider creationism/"Intelligent Design" to be a ruinous, dishonest religious assault on American principles.

Something to ponder.

To misquote Einstein again - God does not play dice with the Universe. That sums it up for me.

Can't we all just get along?

"Ughh....who created Campbells?"

Desertsage: it is permissible in science to say "I don't know." It is not permissible to say "I don't know, so some god must have done it."

When one does that, they have departed from the realm of science, so their argument is simply irrelevant.

Btw, the primordial soup is fairly easily explained. You could start by learning some astronomy, stellar formation, etc. Of course, science has no way of explaining the big bang, rather like you have no way of explaining god. Saying "God always existed" is not any different from saying "the rules that led to the Big Bang always existed" (and neither is science).

beware of the evolution police

re: #185 mama winger

It won't be long. I have Lupus.

Well, I'm in no hurry for that answer, so take your time; sorry for your situation. I hope there is still some chance ... don't know much about the disease.

re: #115 MandyManners

The Bible does mention unicorns.

Six times, at least.....

But, I checked the concordance, and the Hebrew translation of the word comes out as "wild bull, because of its conspicuousness".....I was sad, the first time I saw that, thinking perhaps there were no ones like are drawn so beautifully today.....

re: #140 zombie

We're afraid of religious extremists hijacking our educational system and destroying our position of leadership in the biological sciences.

Intelligent Design is aggressively anti-American in this sense.

Well said Zombie. This is also a point I've held for a very long time. It's good to know that another person understands what's at stake.

re: #150 DesertSage

Primordial Soup was created by billions of years of chemical reactions. As simply as possible, different compunds in the atmosphere - methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen sulfide, to name a few - interacted until the very basic elements of life - amino acids - emerged. To be sure, we do not know this for certain and new and exciting discoveries are made every day that shine new light on the origins of life.

Admitting that modern biologists do not know everything, however, by no means allows a serious thinker to say "God did it". That claim is untestable, unanswerable, and ultimately, does not answer anything. Serious science is interested in natural mechanisms. Invoking the supernatural to explain anything is not science.

re: #172 MandyManners

I remember seeing Fantasia when I was a kid. Did they remake it and screw it up?

I prefer the original. However, the later version had much better sound quality of course.

re: #167 zombie

Possibly, yes.

Intelligent design is the cessation of seeking knowledge. It is caving in to our current state of ignorance and no longer seeking scientific advancement.

It is medieval.

Don't agree with you on that.
Intelligent Design is an attempt at compromise by people who have been brow-beaten all their lives in every venue of their lives that "creation in 6 days is impossible so only fools and ignoramouses believe it. Smart, educated people KNOW that evolution is correct."

That's it. Nothing else. We all can argue this or that variation, but the bottom line is that.

re: #190 gmsc

Forces of nature.

But if you believe everything had to be created by a god or gods, who or what created those gods?

I never said that believe one way or another. I just want as much information taught as possible....not less.

Darwinists want to cut out any other possibility that doesn't correspond with their theory! Why are they so afraid?

Teach more, not less!

re: #149 zombie

Agreed. All students who learn Intelligent Design will be unemployable in the sciences.

A sad waste of human potential.

Students who learn more than one thing will be unemployable? I don't think so. . .

re: #199 zombie

If you think of yourself as a fan of zombietime, keep in mind that I consider creationism/"Intelligent Design" to be a ruinous, dishonest religious assault on American principles.

Something to ponder.

It seems to me as if you are forcing people to take sides or drawing a line in the sand. Is that your intent? I feel as if you are deliberately alienating me.

re: #56 Richard Romano

Stein already mentioned this on Medved's show -- it's sheer rubbish. They haven't debunked anything...see the film for yourself; this site is trying to get people to stay away from the film, and just listen to them (Stalinists anyone?).

Most stunning is Dawkin's own admission that life could not have arisen by chance; he says it's possible aliens seeded the planet! And they say ID proponents are nuts.

It is entirely possible that life arrived on earth from elsewhere. There are organic molecules in comet dust, which strikes earth every day. Same for Martian rocks, which have struck earth by the thousands.

But hey, let's toss all possibilities out the window, because we KNOW that life has a supernatural cause!

re: #95 opnion

You can't carbon date dinosaur fossils, C14 doesn't have a half life nearly long enough. Dating fossils millions of years old requires different techniques.

Even if it turns out evolution is 100% wrong, that doesn't excuse the slander of equating it to Nazism.

Furthermore, creationists generally misrepresent of the theory of evolution as if contained everything in science that contradicts Genesis.

For example, using geology to prove there was no world wide flood in historical times, is not the theory of evolution at all.

Evolution is essential to all fields of biology, as gravity is for astronomy. A professional "evolutionist" is not someone who thinks up debating points for a living, but a working scientist who takes it for granted and uses it in reasoning about observations.

re: #159 laxmatt1984

Judge Jones copied nearly verbatum his arguments from the ACLU. Would you consider the ACLU to be a left-wing org?

re: #205 Ma Sands

Six times, at least.....

But, I checked the concordance, and the Hebrew translation of the word comes out as "wild bull, because of its conspicuousness".....I was sad, the first time I saw that, thinking perhaps there were no ones like are drawn so beautifully today.....

Now you've gone and done it.

Like I said earlier, get rid of the public school system, and this problem disappears with it.

Want ID taught in your school? Get together with the faculty and the other parents, and get them to agree to it! Want a 10 commandments monument right in the middle of the quad? As long as you can get the faculty and other parents to go along with it (and help raise the funds, those things can be expensives!), go for it! Want to mandate prayer time in the classroom? Go for it!

re: #199 zombie

If you think of yourself as a fan of zombietime, keep in mind that I consider creationism/"Intelligent Design" to be a ruinous, dishonest religious assault on American principles.

Something to ponder.

I do not think that creationism and ID are the same thing in the mindsof those who hold those positions

Well, I've wasted the entire afternoon when I should be getting something done. I'll be back after I've enjoyed some of this beautiful day.

re: #216 George Slivers

That is a lie made up by the Discovery Institute.

re: #200 Gbear

To misquote Einstein again - God does not play dice with the Universe. That sums it up for me.

That's because God prefers the poker table...

#172 MandyManners

They didn't re-make it---they made a brand new one for 2000, with new segments (they do show the Mickey Mouse "Sorcerer's Apprentice" again, but it's the original, not a re-make).

I got to see it a lot, and the original Fantasia, when Kid Kamel, who was recently laid up, developed an obsession with both films during his convalence, and watched them over and over.

I'll go ahead and give away the plot: in Fantasia 2000, there's a Noah's Ark segment. All the animals are marching obediently into the ark, two-by-two, while a unicorn, a griffin and a dragon belching fire are pointing at them, and laughing hysterically.

re: #194 MandyManners

Wonder how lonely they get.

Aww - they got each other for company! Lots of little baby unicorns playing around them ...

re: #11 zombie

Yes, based on discussions, and facts. What Stein is promoting is the standard anti-knowledge line: Since we don't know for sure, supernatural explanations are a possibility!

Fine for religious instruction. Not fine for science class.

I agree, but the fact is evolution is being taught as scientific fact not as theory, that’s the BS part. Most of evolution is still nothing but theory, and the unanswered parts require faith in the not yet proven hypothesis, same as intelligent design.

Evolution does not have all the facts, yet it is paraded around as such, no facts as to the beginning of life or for any species jump and natural selection with those 4 winged flies in reality doesn’t make any sense, those extra wings are a hindrance not an asset, which makes natural selection nothing more than standard genetic mutations all confined within the same species.

And lets not forget the fallible men who are the scientist, they interpret things seen with all there preconceived notions intact, the same evidence will be used to prove both sides all depending who’s doing the telling.

re: #150 DesertSage

I see the evolutionists (or the anti-creationist's) people here are spinning like crazy....but not one of them has answered my simple question:

WHO CREATED THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP!

Just answer that one, that's all.

Darwin himself when asked that question, answered , "The Creator."

re: #218 gmsc

I agree. Just one of the many reasons I pulled both my kids out of the public schools system. They are totally unresponsive to the wishes of the parents. They have their own agenda, and it did not coincide with mine. At all.

But contrary to people here who seem to think I am a dunce, I did manage to raise educated kids. Who are not a waste to society.

re: #199 zombie

Being anti-slavery is anti-American? Who knew.

I'm glad people are getting out in front of this nonsense, if there was more foresight in other cases, we might not see so many 911 troofers out there, Fahrenheit 911 might have been a fart in a hurricane instead of forming negative opinions about the War on Terror. ID troofers are trying to make the case that evolution and belief in God are mutually exclusive and that is just bunk. Just goes to show Ben Stein isn't infallible.

I'm just glad Isaac Asimov isn't alive today to see the misuse, whether out of purpose or ignorance, of the word "theory" on this board by people who have no understanding the scientific context of the word.

re: #199 zombie

If you think of yourself as a fan of zombietime, keep in mind that I consider creationism/"Intelligent Design" to be a ruinous, dishonest religious assault on American principles.

Something to ponder.

Here I am, a creationist that visits zombietime.

Crazy world, init?

re: #230 song_and_dance_man

Something cannot come from nothing.

Who or what created your god?

re: #221 laxmatt1984

No your viewpoint is a lie made-up by "Pandas Thumb" and other anti-thought hate sites.

For those who missed it in the spinoffs: Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...

#1 the intentional misquoting of Darwin to reverse the meaning of his original statement is something worthy of Mikey Moore. The movie is deceptive and dishonest. I'm still surprised Ben Stein would participate in it.

re: #202 Sideways

Desertsage: it is permissible in science to say "I don't know." It is not permissible to say "I don't know, so some god must have done it."

Is it permissible to say "I don't know, therefore there [may] be another explanation?".

Obviously, one cannot ask that question without being called anti-American by zombie.

_{geeezz, just asking if there may be another explanation gets you labeled anti-American.}

re: #231 gmsc

I'm just glad Isaac Asimov isn't alive today to see the misuse, whether out of purpose or ignorance, of the word "theory" on this board by people who have no understanding the scientific context of the word.

Yep. Gud thing he ain' heer to witnis us por dum hilllbilleees.

GAZE.

i think proponents of ID are actually trying to argue in a logical way:
‘Ex nihilo nililo"

from nothing, nothing comes

re: #68 George Slivers

Zombie- You run a nice site showing the obnoxious behavior of the far-left. Darwinism is in essence the philosophy that motivates these fanatics.

[Shakes head in dismay.]

'Expelled' is about academic freedom to challenge speculative dogma on the origins of life. As a scientist who has published over 30 peer-reviewed articles, I am a bit offended when people argue that you can't be a scientist and challenge Darwinism.

You should at least see the movie before you pass judgment you might be surprised.

If the creationists take over the US school system and teach creationism in this country, I will be forced to re-identify as a moonbat, if that's what it takes.

This is not a trivial issue.

re: #189 song_and_dance_man

Hi, song....missed ya..... :)

re: #199 zombie

If you think of yourself as a fan of zombietime, keep in mind that I consider creationism/"Intelligent Design" to be a ruinous, dishonest religious assault on American principles.

Something to ponder.

I still love you. Maybe we'll get you to evolve your way through a Mixed BBQ plate at a Sonny's one day. Short of that, your beliefs where they differ from mine matter not a wit when the one's we hold agree. Your Zombietime blog is and invaluable record of the silliness on the left.

When it comes to my faith, I don't ask for proof scientifically. I could care less what science shows. My attitude is all truth is of God. If evolution was used to create the world we live in, that is hunky-dorey to me. I never understood the big deal that religious people have with evolution (I have been devoutly religious my whole life).

That being said, Kudos to Charles for posting this. The debate is healthy.

re: #228 Roger

You didn't know zombie? Check out the press transcript's from Lincoln's presidency and you will find that Helen Thomas ridiculed Abe Lincoln worse than George Bush.

If Ben Stein makes a movie about evolution, the movie is really about....Ben Stein.
He's really not the person to lend light to this debate.

I've thought about this subject for a while. It occurs to me that religious conservatives don't really care what the egghead academics think; it doesn't affect them at all. They get riled at the occasional obnoxious atheistic academics that tout evolution to "prove" that there is no God.

The evolutionists (like me) don't mind what people believe. It really doesn't affect much of substance. Kids in college get a whole lot of marxist crap in class. they memorize it, spit it back on the test to get their A, then blow it off. If they don't like evolutionary theory, they'll do the same thing.

The key to understanding the animosity is the insistence that evolution is a settled dispute. In fact, there is so much that we don't know about it that sweeping generalizations are uncalled for. We don't know how the whole thing got started (got some nifty theories, though), have no way to run experiments on the most important questions, have no idea what the actual mechanisms are, or how certain complex enzymes could be produced.

Bottom line: a little more humility out of the evolutionists would go a long, long way. We shouldn't be disparaging people of religious faith as though they were simpletons or conspiracy theorists. They are right to be skeptical about a theory with so many unknowns.

re: #241 zombie

If the creationists take over the US school system

Yeah.

That'll happen.

re: #200 Gbear

To misquote Einstein again - God does not play dice with the Universe. That sums it up for me.

This was in relation to quantum mechanics, and QM has been upheld by experimental evidence.

re: #225 DownRightMeanAmerican

I agree, but the fact is evolution is being taught as scientific fact not as theory, that’s the BS part. Most of evolution is still nothing but theory, and the unanswered parts require faith in the not yet proven hypothesis, same as intelligent design.

Haven't I already explained to you numerous times the definition of scientific theory? Why continue with easily debunked talking points? It only make you appear stupid and uneducated.

re: #75 laxmatt1984

It's not that creationists were expelled, it's that they've flunked.

Intelligent Design makes zero testable claims, and its entire premise is based on arguing "from the gaps" - which is identical to the tactics used by 9/11 truthers.

Evolution has over a century of scientific scrutiny, and each new biological discover only further confirms Darwin's descent with modification. Evolution has even anticipated and predicated new fossil discoveries, which is simply amazing.

Pope John Paul the II even endorsed evolution in his address "The Truth Cannot Contradict Truth".

You are my new best friend.

Five-star rating for your comment.

laxmatt1984 for President!

re: #180 JeremyR

What about Chickens? since we are writing a bill of animals rights to send to PETA.

I like chickens to have the right to being battered & deep fried.
Not healthy,but good

I encourage those of you on both sides of this debate to pop over to reasons.org to take a look at what this debate is about. One of the problems with ID is that it is loosely defined and when referred to by neo-Darwininsts or Naturalists, it is typically defined as "fundamentalist, 6-day young earther creationists". That is hardly the position taken by most serious scientists that are open to the possibility of a transcendent creator. I think folks need to take a deep breath and avoid ad hominem arguments.

re: #27 joncelli

Actually, I find creationism and ID pretty embarrassing. It gives people the impression that all conservatives are anti-science, and in fact it's all predicated on misunderstandings and twisted logic. I just wish conservatives could get past this.

While I find ID a bit odd and actually an unhelpful way for people to say that they believe in a creator God, to think that someone who believes in a God (creationism, I guess) who first put all things in motion (including evolution) is anti-science is an ignorant position.

The patron of my Province, Saint Albert the Great, was a scientist and his student, Saint Thomas Aquinas, came up with the most logical explanation for the existence of a "prime mover" which I have never heard a single reasonable argument against: nothing in motion (or change) was put in motion by itself. Infinite regression is a non-option. All that was and is in motion or changing, was first put into motion...and this is the prime mover, or what we call God.

Again, from the link:

"The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested. Scientific testing requires that there be some set of phenomena which are incompatible with your idea. No observation could possibly be incompatible with a claim that an “intelligent agent” (whom everyone recognizes as God) acted to, say, introduce information into a system. Untestable claims are not scientific claims. Regardless of their attractiveness as religious ideas (although many people of faith strongly reject intelligent design) intelligent design has not passed muster as science."

re: #213 zombie

It is entirely possible that life arrived on earth from elsewhere. There are organic molecules in comet dust, which strikes earth every day. Same for Martian rocks, which have struck earth by the thousands.

But hey, let's toss all possibilities out the window, because we KNOW that life has a supernatural cause!

Zombie - I can also believe in the possibility you state above, WHILE STILL BELIEVING that somewhere there was a beginning created by God. You seem to truly believe that those people who believe in a "supernatural" beginning to life can't also believe that life developed and evolved in accordance with a plan by God. Do you really think that this country's science education is completely lost unless students are taught there is absolutely no "supernatural" beginning?

re: #81 Sharmuta

But a "theory" is just that- a theory.

Boooooooo.

I will not address this comment. If you don't understand this basic linguistic issue, there is no point in continuing the discussion.

This has been hashed over a trillion times. I vow to not waste my time re-proving already proven points. It's a "mug's game," to borrow a Britishism.

re: #207 laxmatt1984

Primordial Soup was created by billions of years of chemical reactions. As simply as possible, different compunds in the atmosphere - methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen sulfide, to name a few - interacted until the very basic elements of life - amino acids - emerged. To be sure, we do not know this for certain and new and exciting discoveries are made every day that shine new light on the origins of life.

Admitting that modern biologists do not know everything, however, by no means allows a serious thinker to say "God did it". That claim is untestable, unanswerable, and ultimately, does not answer anything. Serious science is interested in natural mechanisms. Invoking the supernatural to explain anything is not science.

That is right - and God has no place in the laboratory.

On the other hand, to conclude that God doesn't exist because one cannot find Him in the test tubes, or measure Him, or have a proof of His existence acceptable to the natural sciences, is also a transgression.

The question of God cannot be debated on scientific terms - it is a debate for believers, theologians and philosophers. The views of scientists are not, in that debate, more valid just because they are scientists.

re: #237 DesertSage

Is it permissible to say "I don't know, therefore there [may] be another explanation?".

Obviously, one cannot ask that question without being called anti-American by zombie.

_{geeezz, just asking if there may be another explanation gets you labeled anti-American.}

Science does not claim to know what caused the universe to come into existence. Scientists explicitly state that it is, at this point, totally beyond their abilities to study time at or before t=0.
re: #225 DownRightMeanAmerican

I agree, but the fact is evolution is being taught as scientific fact not as theory, that’s the BS part. Most of evolution is still nothing but theory, and the unanswered parts require faith in the not yet proven hypothesis, same as intelligent design.
.

You don't know what a scientific theory is. Most people don't, and it's responsible for a lot of misunderstandings in things like this. But I suspect you don't go around saying "I don't think gravity exists because no one has ever found a graviton"

re: #82 joncelli

Exactly. I had a physics professor at Virginia Tech who took just that position -- science and belief in God need not be incompatible. He also pointed out that most early scientists proudly considered themselves to be carrying out the work of exposing God's plan for the edification of mankind.

Again, I have no problem with that kind of position.

Zombie - will you ever address my posts to you?

re: #199 zombie

If you think of yourself as a fan of zombietime, keep in mind that I consider creationism/"Intelligent Design" to be a ruinous, dishonest religious assault on American principles.

Something to ponder.

zombie, that weighs so little in the balance, when considering eternity....."hope springs eternal..." isn't something only Shakespeare wrote..... :)

re: #199 zombie

If you think of yourself as a fan of zombietime, keep in mind that I consider creationism/"Intelligent Design" to be a ruinous, dishonest religious assault on American principles.
Something to ponder.

Yet, you find yourself amongst people who appreciate your work for what you've done, and have long known your basic political and philosophical positions. You've spelled them out on numerous occasions. What's going on in this thread is that you've spoken more thoughtful words about selfish, self-centered Folsom Street exhibitionists than you've just dished out to modest people who have been solid supporters of you for years now. And have seen a few things you haven't, yet are willing to praise you for what they think you've done well, without feeling any need to drag in gratuitous comments.

Gads. The Yanamamo get more respect from academia for their beliefs that produce smashing each other over the head and the art of murder.

re: #83 eclectic infidel

You're not alone Zombie. :)

It's always been my position that creationism is theology and belongs *only* in a religious instruction class.

Then join me at the barricades!