Ben Stein Confronts Dominance of Darwinian Thought in New Film

AntiAnti »

Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I know this is an old posting, anyway. To the Scientists - forgo your roots and you will fall over :P
to the faithfull - i agree there is intelligent design, and in a scientific level easyly proved, free will, choice, energy, light, atoms, molicules. The simple fact and truth here is beyond biological standings. its the mear fact things exist at all. the very proof everyone wants haha is in the very things that lie and lay in front of us. who said what an electron will do? how can we under this within this even attempt to say what it is. the box is dark inside but alas how do we know how big it truely is? light onto dencity forms mass, but what was this light in the first place? science overlooks the very laws they attempt to find as the first scientists saw them. aka the very laws of creation are your proof. the very breath taken is the proof. it is, it was, it will be again and its that simple. the only thing science today is unfolding is faith.

what else is there? how can we strive for something better if we think ourselves full? how do we even and have ever had this notion of perfection? this drive to seek for truth? who the heck is anyone to hand you the keys to your own kingdom? why do you think its called Revilation! Appeffiny? Notion? Realization? Rememberence? Surely Seeking A Definition for something that Is the diffenition Is Folly. Seeds of Dought Blosom onto the world... forgoing of roots? what will hold you?

elroyjetsn »

Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Pete,

The scientific establishment care less about the truth than you think. Otherwise, they'd be eager to admit that neither mutation, nor natural selection, nor vast periods of time have the smarts to come up with the wonderfully clean designs we see throughout nature.

They insist that the process of evolution is non-intelligent confirming that neo-darwinism is a non-factor in the story of how life on this planet came to be.

If evolution is serious science, science must be a bimbo! Either you give the natural creation story some smarts, or you look for a creator that can handle the job.

Will E. »

Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:01 am Agree: 11   Disagree: 30

It's sad and ironic, but what these anti-evolution Xians don't understand about scientific thought is that if a scientist *did* discover that natural selection was not responsible for evolution, that there was some other mechanism at work, that scientist would be hailed as an absolute genius. Science embraces those who can back up their study with facts, predictions, models, etc. Religion does not.

merkin »

Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:12 pm Agree: 9   Disagree: 11

"It's been the central question of humanity throughout the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, "The Origin of Species." In the century and a half since, biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin's idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. This conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms and town halls across America and beyond."

This is the original blurb for "Crossroads," a completely neutral sounding film pretending to be a documentary of the science/religion debate, and the only description provided to the scientists who were interviewed. Now if that's not blatant deception... But the filmmakers haven't contented themselves with a little white lie here, the entire premise of the actual film, “Expelled,” is knowingly based on a falsehood – that scientists who believe in design are at risk of being denied tenure, or fired by the Atheist Scientific Intelligentsia. The biologist referred to in Phan’s article who was allegedly viciously assailed by NCSE and the Smithsonian Institute, and whose name was (I can only imagine deliberately) unacknowledged, is Richard von Sternberg. Why might this poor martyr, who is apparently the main display in support of the film’s premise, go unnamed?

http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/12/laffaire-de-sternberg-part-eighty.html

Is that the best they’ve got? At the film’s website Ben Stein writes,

“Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.
They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened.”

Funny, I don’t remember hearing about “big science” ostracizing Ken Miller, Francis Collins, or even Frank Tipler who probably deserves it.

In conclusion, a movie that fumes with so much dishonesty from the outset should frustrate, rather than encourage the more scrupulous of those who still hold out hope for ID.

Citizen »

Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:52 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 6

Bcootz: I note that you've abandoned all of your other creationist arguments in favor of expanding the original understanding of biogenesis to a much broader generalization without any justification. I guess that's one method of trying to walk away with your dignity intact. It's a little late for that, though.

bcoontz »

Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:30 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

Citizen, if you can't understand what the implications of the law of biogenesis on materialism are, you are in complete denial. I wish you well.

Citizen »

Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:18 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

thehessons: Who are these "credible scientists?" Why do you assume that it is a "creation" in the first place? And, finally, why do you think that theory of evolution makes humankind "a mistake."

Citizen »

Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:14 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 3

bcootz: Incorrect. They later found much more of the skeleton. You really shouldn't rely on Answers in Genesis for your science news. http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.html
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Locomotion.htm

Why is fish to amphibian "upward advance?" Each is adapted to their specific circumstances. There is no hierarchy between them. As for "an entirely new feature," that has been observed multiple times. Pesticide resistant insects are especially good examples, because they can become resistant to chemical insecticides that are wholly artificial.

As for the law of biogenesis, when it was developed, it had nothing to do with the origins of life in a chemical soup. It had to do with the belief that maggots formed out of rotting meat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

Here's a quote for you: "If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance 'god'" -Jerry Coyne, geneticist, University of Chicago.

thehessons »

Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:31 pm Agree: 9   Disagree: 8

Read Lee Stroebel's A Case for a Creator. It is absolutely insane that no matter how many credible scientists have disputed evolution and the Darwinian theories how science doesn't care. Over and over creation points to a creator. There's no way we are a mistake.

bcoontz »

Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:00 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 4

Citizen, at least you gave one example to respond to, so I'll start with that. I assume that the "whale with legs" fossil that you are referring to is the Ambulocetus. I have seen the drawings of what was actually found and must say that they have an excellent imagination. They found a partial jaw, a few ribs, what looks like part of hip or pelvis bone and what might be a partial foot. Underwhelming in the extreme. Clearly this is a sore spot for evolutionists and they needed something of this type and so they took this sparse evidence and built it up to fit their presuppositions. In terms of the "vestigial limbs" of other whales and whale fossils, many evolutionists believe that they may have been used for grasping during the act of mating.
Variation within species or even speciation are not at issue in the creation/evolution debate. What is required for the upward advance of evolution, that is from say fish to amphibian, or amphibian to reptile is brand new information, that is, the ability to have an entirely new function where none was present in the previous creature. But even more importantly than that is the leap from non living matter to living. This is where the laws stated become applicable. You state that they have been refuted, but offer nothing specific, so that it as far as we can go along that line. The same can be said for the mutations. You say that it has created new information, but don't give an example, so all I can say in response is that in all of my reading, I have never seen a good example.
In terms of what Lewontin said, I can quote several other evolutionists in a similar vein if you would like me to do so.

theseer01 »

Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:55 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

Citizen: I said "So far I have yet to see any study that categorically proves this fact." Now while there maybe scientists that are working to prove a genetic link there are none that have proven it to be so. In my earlier post I was making the point that teachers and professors are repeating unfounded and unproven theories on homosexuality and genetics without a true scientific consensus... your source material is old news and does not prove anything.

Citizen »

Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:58 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 5

Theseer01: Before you were saying “no scientific backing.” Now you say “no categorical proof” Please explain why you are not shifting the goal posts now that I have pointed you to some scientific backing.

Mpabe: Compare Western Europe with United States (http://aids.about.com/od/dataandstatistics/qt/regional.htm) . They are much more tolerant of gays and lesbians than we are, but their infection rate is less! Clearly, if we want to reduce our infection rate, we must push for more gay equality. Moreover, high birth rates aren’t a good thing. Africa has high birth rates, but they need them, because more children do not survive childhood. The western world has low birthrates, but a higher rate of survival. We should work to halt the spread of AIDS through safe sex and new medicines, not shove gays and lesbians back into a corner where they can die of social callousness, the way they did in the eighties. And don’t be so sure that homosexuality isn’t “fit” After all, gays and lesbians can still have kids, or they can help increase the fitness of their genetic relatives by focusing their care on their nieces and nephews, for example.

Bcootz: The creationist arguments you advance have been debunked many times. The law of biogenesis says nothing about chemical reactions leading to primitive life. The law was a refutation of an earlier creationist claim that god had created people in their present forms out of thin air, like magic.

Evolution involves the following tools: reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. They are all seen every day. Therefore, they do not violate physical laws, including the second law of thermodynamics.

Mutations have been shown to create novel genetic material, increased genetic material, novel genetically regulated functions, and increased genetic variety in a population. In what sense then, is that not “new information?”

Gaps in the fossil record are the creationist way of moving the goalposts. For example, creationists once claimed that for evolution to be true, there would have to be a whale with legs, and no such had been discovered. Then fossils of one were discovered. I suppose creationists had to content themselves with pointing out that there were now two gaps in the fossil record, rather than recognizing that they had been shown up.

Finally, your quote is irrelevant. Lewontin said a stupid thing. So what? Because he said it, that makes it right?

bcoontz »

Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:19 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 3

Citizen, you seem to always treat your assertions as though they were evidence. You say there is strong evidence, but never give an example. You hold onto a theory that violates the law of biogenesis, the second law of thermodynamics, and information theory (that information cannot arise from material without intelligence) to name a few.
Darwinian theory began with natural selection as the mechanism that advanced upward evolution. When it was shown that natural selection only operated on genetic information already present, Neo Darwinian Theory (natural selection + mutations) were posited as the agents of change. Neither has shown they are capable of adding genetic information that is required for molecules to man evolution. When the fossil record stubbornly failed to yield the myriad of transistional forms required for evolution to be true, punctuated equilibrium was advanced (stored mutational change that occured suddenly). In spite of the observations that ran counter to the original hypothesis, no one ever challenged the "fact of evolution". I leave you with this quote from Richard Lewontin from 'Billions and billions of demons'.
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment , a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explantations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

mpabe »

Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:40 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Citizen, what if there is physical evidence of a predisposition to homosexuality. People are predisposed to all sorts of behavior which society requires restraint for the common good. We all know of people who are predisposed to anger but we don’t allow that as an excuse for murder. What happens in the future when we find a physical predisposition to pedophilia? Do we then make it legal? You will likely respond that homosexuality doesn’t hurt society so shouldn’t be restrained but that is the prevalent lie. Seventy-one percent of all HIV cases in America are homosexual. That impacts our medical and insurance systems, shortens lives and lowers quality of life, and lowers our nation’s birth rate. Today, those countries that advocate abortion and homosexuality are in a population decline that jeopardizes their future. I’m amazed that those who adamantly defend Darwinism also equally voraciously defend homosexuality – for the survival of the fittest is the polar opposite of homosexuality.

theseer01 »

Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:51 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Citizen I find it interesting that with all the studies going on about what makes us (do or be) that you would find it telling that I would lump gays with other groups that scientists claim to have a different brain functions than the general population.
In order to prove their theory that homosexuality is biological they have to study the brain and well as other factors. So far I have yet to see any study that categorically proves this fact. There are also studies being conducted on pedophiles and serial killers to see if there is in fact any biological factors that make them that way. So what can I say. Like I said if you want science to make the decisions they are going to have to be proved by scientific standards.... And so far all we have is 0.

Citizen »

Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:38 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

theseer01: I find it telling that you lump gays/lesbians with serial killers and pedophiles. I'm not sure why you think there is no scientific backing for genetic origins for homosexuality. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm

bcootz: Just because you will never give up creationism because it is required for you to believe in your god, that doesn't mean that everyone who is not a creationist acts the same way and from the same motives, in reverse. If anyone could find a superior theory to Evolution, there would be a nobel prize in their future, not to mention fame and prestige. They'd deserve it every bit of it, considering the evidentiary strength of evolution. Sadly for you, creationism/ID has yet to qualify.

bcoontz »

Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:45 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

HampsteadPete, the controversy between Darwinism and creationism has never been about who has more evidence. Both sides have the same evidence, they just interpret it differently. One example of this is the fossil record. Using uniformitarian assumptions (that processes observed in the present are the key to understanding the past), the materialist will look at the how long it currently takes for sedimentary layers to be formed, not allowing for any change in deposition rate, and then extrapolate backwards (at least this is the theory).

The creationist will look a the same fossil record and see sudden, catastrophic burial. In fact, this is the only way we get fossils. Fossils are not gradually formed. They must be laid down quickly in either a volcanic or flood event. Anything that just lays along the ground gets eaten by scavaners, bacteria and oxygen and could never become fossilized. The creationist believes that the fossil record is testament to the flood account in Genesis.

Because of these different starting assumptions, the same evidence is interpreted differently. No materialist will ever seek to overturn Darwinism because it gives the only intellectual platform, flawed as it is, for their atheism. Oh, and one of the leading authorities on plate tectonics is a creationist, Dr. John Baumgartner.

theseer01 »

Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:14 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

Sometimes I'm not sure if those who comment on these articles carefully read the article. The article is about a film that discusses the debate between ID and DaSometimes I'm not sure if those who comment on these articles carefully read the article. The article is about a film that discusses the debate between ID and Darwinism. I was not trying to argue for or against. I know what I believe, I was just pointing out the stupidity of Dawkin's statement. But since you brought it up the fact is many within ID - Kenyon co-author of Panda (book in question) as an example does not by his own admission hold on to the traditional creationist view, but does believe in abrupt appearance of complex forms. So not all creationist are the same... many different shades of Darwinist, many different shades of Creationist.
To be sure that was an interesting case Citizen. I loosely followed the trial and on your advice I read the whole case and think it was a great outcome, but not for the same reasons. As you and I have discussed before I do not advocate the mixture of religion and school. I do not advocate many things, but the outcome for this case provides wonderful precedent. If teachers or professors attempt to teach young people that homosexuals, pedophiles, serial killers are biologically predisposed by their DNA to behave like they do, which is currently being advanced without any scientific backing, a lawsuit should be in order. Can't wait for that day. If science is the standard it is going to have to be the standard for everything not for what is convenient.

Citizen »

Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:53 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

theseer01: On the contrary, anyone who tries to pretend that ID and Creationism are different is being dishonest or fooling themselves. In the recent Dover trial, a textbook was entered into evidence. This textbook was a creationist text, which the publisher had later gone through and crossed out every mention of "creationism" and replaced it with "intelligent design." Can't get clearer than that. In fact, you might want to read up on the whole trial. It'll be an eye-opening experience for you.

theseer01 »

Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:51 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

"At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front," said Dawkins. I cannot believe someone as intelligent as Dawkins (not by design of course) would allow himself to be bamboozled by a group of flat-earthers.
The truth is that Intelligent Design and Creationism are very different in their approach to creation and the creator. Anyone who tries to make the two one in the same is being dishonest.
If the bleating masses want to think they evolved from the ape more power to you. The way people act these days may there's be something to it.

HampsteadPete »

Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:47 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 13

Of course "Darwinian" thought dominates secondary education, how could it not? Look at it this way, what would be the career prognosis of some poor schnook teaching at Bob Jones who one day started talking about the "Moroni" story being true, and spending class time "teaching the controversy?"

Just like there is no truth to Smith's revelation, there is no truth to creationism. Why then should good schools put up with poor scholarship? If there was any truth to ID creationism, the so-called "creation scientists" currently in the field would be trampled in the rush of real scientists in pursuit of the Nobel prize waiting for the first to overturn Darwin.

Science doesn't work like religion, if it did, we would not know about plate tectonics, and the earth really would be thought to be less than ten thousand years old.