Ben Stein Appears on O'Reilly Factor

uhlek
Silver Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Ben Stein Appears on O'Reilly Factor

Thought some of ya'll would find this interesting.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/23/intelligent-designs-persecution-complex/

Stein appearing on the O'Reilly Factor to promote his new pro-intelligent design movie, Expelled.  It's about what you'd expect...a lot of misunderstanding of evolutionary biology, and no opposing viewpoint.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I am consistently dismayed

I am consistently dismayed by Ben Stein's view on this.  Ok, his camp is that we were intelligently designed by a creator because we do not know EVERYTHING about existence or how life came to exist.

Where's the science?  What can we test?  He's just presenting gaps in knowledge and filling it with an untestable idea.  Crap, life began with an all knowing, all powerful race of supernatural doughnuts seeding the universe with life.  Will this idea lead to breakthroughs in reducing HIV deaths?  The solution of curing Cancer?  What have we gained from the "god of the gaps" theory?  Name one thing!  One medicine, one science, one anything other than an offshoot denomination or some other equally worthless thing.

How can Ben Stein be so soundly idiotic in this?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Wow, I really liked Ben

Wow, I really liked Ben Stein until...now.

Can someone fill us in on what "gaps" exist in the theory of evolution, if any? Is evolution even a theory anymore, or can we call it fact?

I despise O'Reilly's insinuation that there is some kind of time limit on science to figure things out.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


uhlek
Silver Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
If no one's seen it, here's

If no one's seen it, here's the movie's website:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ 


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
geirj wrote: Can someone

geirj wrote:
Can someone fill us in on what "gaps" exist in the theory of evolution, if any? Is evolution even a theory anymore, or can we call it fact?

The only reason we use the word theory infront of evolution is because of religion. It's fact.


DrTerwilliker
DrTerwilliker's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2007-08-06
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote:   The

CrimsonEdge wrote:

 

The only reason we use the word theory infront of evolution is because of religion. It's fact.

Actually, in science, a theory has a very different meaning.

From wikipedia:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts."

Gravity, in science, is called a theory, as is the earth revolving around the sun.  Creationists who constantly proclaim that evolution "is just a theory" are ignorant of that word's meaning in the world of science.   


stevedave83
stevedave83's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
DrTerwilliker

DrTerwilliker wrote:
CrimsonEdge wrote:

 

The only reason we use the word theory infront of evolution is because of religion. It's fact.

Actually, in science, a theory has a very different meaning.

From wikipedia:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts."

Gravity, in science, is called a theory, as is the earth revolving around the sun. Creationists who constantly proclaim that evolution "is just a theory" are ignorant of that word's meaning in the world of science.

I was going to say something along those lines, but you beat me to it.

This one really chaps my ass. There have been discussions on here recently about how creationists misquote and misunderstand the science of evolution. This one is a red flag. As soon as I hear someone say the evolution is "only a theory", I immediately know that they have no idea what in the hell they're talking about. As stated above, gravity is a theory as is the earth revolving around the sun. Other notable theories include:

Germ Theory: Proposes that microorganisms are the causes of many diseases. It lead to the discovery of antibiotics.

Cell Theory: The idea that cells are the basic "building blocks" of living things. I don't think anything else needs to be said about this one.

Theory of Relativity: I trust that this one needs no introduction.

The thing that bugs the shit out of me is that no one is going to protest any of these scientific FACTS or call them "just a theory", and they sure as hell aren't going to put a disclaimer in a textbook as has been done with evolution. The fact is that ALL of these ideas (with the exception of Relativity) are taught in every sixth grade science class in the country.

They need to quit their bitching and crack a book occasionally.

Damn.

You can't rationally argue out something that was not rationally argued in.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The movie is to be released

The movie is to be released on Feb. 12th, Darwin's birthday. I'm rather certain this is no coincidence. Further, I'm rather certain that many churches will be promoting this movie in much the same manner as they did "The Passion of the Christ".

This movie is designed to inflame the creationists into believing that their constitutional rights of free speech are being violated and to motivate them to do something about it.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Before Einstein came out

Before Einstein came out with the Theory of Relativity scientists usually didn't call other theories such as the 'Theory of Gravity' a theory.  They called them laws.  But Einstein threw everything on its head when he overturned Newton and the trend of calling them Theories started happening.

At least I read that once.  I haven't researched it or anything.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


ArianeB
ArianeB's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-09-24
User is offlineOffline
uhlek wrote: If no one's

uhlek wrote:

If no one's seen it, here's the movie's website:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ 

Even though I have not even seen the movie, I bet this 2 hour You Tube video successfully disputes every point in the movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
There has been about 2-3

There has been about 2-3 weeks worth of people who have taken what I say and somehow take it out of context.

The reason we call it a theory instead of a law (compared to the law/theory of gravity) is because of religion.


uhlek
Silver Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The reason we call

Quote:
The reason we call it a theory instead of a law (compared to the law/theory of gravity) is because of religion.

No, I'm pretty sure we call it a theory is because it is a scientific theory.

I'd be interested to hear your reasonings for why reigion is to blame for scientific terminology, however. 


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 287
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
Wow, I haven't heard so

Wow, I haven't heard so much nonsence spewed in such little time in since I saw a Ken Ham video.

 Let's see I counted:

Violation of the philosophy of science:7

False Dichotomy:1

Outright lies:6

Strawman:2

Mixing up evolution & abiogenesis:2

Argument from authority:4

Argument from ignorance:1


And all this time I thought that Ben Stein was a smart person.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


DeathMunkyGod
atheist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-09-15
User is offlineOffline
Fact or Theory

Descent with modification, which is the definition of evolution in biology, is a fact.  It's easy enough to observe just look at yourself.  You are not 50% your mother and 50% your father or any percentage of one or the other that adds up to 100.  You are a little bit your father, a little bit your mother and a little bit something new.  The same is true for all living things.  Even organisms that reproduce asexually through mitosis or budding don't produce perfect copies, they produce offspring with slight variations.  These ar observable random mutations which are, by definition, evolution which places evolution itself into the realm of fact.

 The Theory of Evolution, is not fact.  Science does not labor to prove things true or factual.  The idea of the theory is to understand how the fact of evolution resulted in the world we observe today.  It brings up concepts and ideas that are not so easily observed which need to be formulated then tested.  But anyone saying that they've proven the Theory of Evolution to be completely true would be commiting the exact same fallacy that theists are guilty of.  An Argument from Ignorance.  Basically the only way to prove the Theory of Evolution absolutely true would be to perform every possible falsifying test and have it come out confirmed.  A person claiming that the Theory of Evolution must be fact because they can't concieve of a falsifying test which could prove it false is only really saying that they lack the imagination to think of another falsifying test which could theoretically disprove the theory.  I don't forsee this happening.  The Theory of Evolution has a wealth of support and, in reality, no problematic gaps.  The question of where life came from has nothing to do with evolution which only happens on life. 

It's a common fallacy of the Intelligent Design movement to vaguely define their terms.  For evolution they use the more general definition, evolution is a proces of modification in any system.  The word can be applied to the entire universe.  By doing that they try to bring fields such as Abiogensis into the realm of the Theory of Evolution.  This is wrong, they are different theories, they have different scopes, they are researched in different ways.  The Theory of Evolution is comprehended by many fields, but most importantly by Biology.  The Theory of Abiogensis is all chemistry as far as I have ever read about it.  The Theory of Evolution may comprehend fields outside of Biology, I've never seen it at work in the field of Chemistry, though.

Another common fallacy commited by Intelligent Design advocates is their assumption that an "I don't know" answer is somehow a problem.  It's clear they see it as a wedge to insert their God.  I have encountered this fallacy many times and it stems from their belief that their worldview answers all questions consistently and unchangingly.  Even that belief is false.  All theist's core beliefs have been consistently changing over time.  They change to fit the needs of the times, they change to fit the needs of specific social groups.  They're always changeing, they are anything but consistent or there wouldn't be so much disagreement within religions.  There'd be no need for denominations of any religions.

And just for fun I thought I'd throw in here my favorite and by far the funniest claim of any Intelligent design advocate who was trying to avoid the fact that what they are proposing is creationism.  I believe it was Michael Behe, but it may have been William Debski who claimed that the intelligent designer may not even have been God.  It could have been a space Alien...did you laugh?  I laughed when I heard it.  They're trying to claim that no life could have evolved without some intelligent designer building the extremely complex cellular machines that make life possible.  Where did the space alien come from?  If the space alien is their intelligent designer it is not a transcendant entity, clearly life CAN evolve from natural processes and they have destroyed their entire point.  Not to mention the space alein argument single handedly destroys all of William Dembski's body of work which deals with complexity in the universe and the assertion that the universe itself could not have come into existence without a designer.  If that designer were within the universe then how did it create the universe?