[Prometheus The Supremo]

Ben Stein's new movie & Intelligent Design

fucking darwin! why did he have to invent evolution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV8sN1UngFY

ben stein believes a loving god created the universe and all. a loving god who designed our mouths, a device to kill and break down other living things, an opening that leads to an even greater horror which is the stomach. "hey food, if the teeth didn't kill you, the hydrochloric acid will." why would a loving god design the world like this? forcing us to end and eat the lives of other living things in order for us to live? because a snake told a chick to pick an apple? another thing, why did god create our mouth with too many teeth? doesn't sound like an intelligent design to me.


it's a cruel world out there. knowing that someone didn't make it that way on purpose is one of the things that gets me through my days. but that's just me.

 

[indense]

Anyone interested in finding out more about this hilariously inept piece of propaganda should be reading PZ Myers at Pharyngula (if, for some reason, you don't already read PZ every day!).

 

[Art Vandelay]

fucking darwin! why did he have to invent evolution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV8sN1UngFY

ben stein believes a loving god created the universe and all. a loving god who designed our mouths, a device to kill and break down other living things, an opening that leads to an even greater horror which is the stomach. "hey food, if the teeth didn't kill you, the hydrochloric acid will." why would a loving god design the world like this? forcing us to end and eat the lives of other living things in order for us to live? because a snake told a chick to pick an apple? another thing, why did god create our mouth with too many teeth? doesn't sound like an intelligent design to me.


it's a cruel world out there. knowing that someone didn't make it that way on purpose is one of the things that gets me through my days. but that's just me.

You've missed the point completely. Stein's movie, as I understand it, is not so much an arguement for Creationism as it is a call for a return to intellectual freedom. The movie advocates for a science freed from the politicism of the day where ideas and theories that challenge existing orthodoxy are not censured but even encouraged

Science has been a poweful force for good because it never allowed itself to be co-opted by preconcieved ideas or notions. Only through a process of constant testing and challenge can we hope to find truth. Today, science has far more in common with the midieval church suppressing ideas and individuals who dare question current group think.

There is no better example than that of Global Warming where scientists that challenge the notion of anthropogenic climate change are excommunicated from the scientific community and the sins of contributing to the problem are absolved throught the indulgences of carbon credits.

Our blind adherence to the dubious theory of Global Warming threatens the safety and security of hundreds of millions of people who will be deprived of the wondrous benefits a modern fossil fueled economy bring.

 

[indense]

Art, I'm really not sure if your post is snark or not.

From the reviews that I've read, Stein's movie primarily about blaming Charles Darwin for the Nazi Holocaust.
And the movie is openly a call for creationism to be taught in science classes which has put the producers in a direct conflict with the Discovery Institute (the main pusher and funder of the "Intelligent Design" theory) who have long argued that ID is not religious. Of course, the Dover School Board ruling kind of put an end to that argument.

 

[Hipster Duck]

You've missed the point completely. Stein's movie, as I understand it, is not so much an arguement for Creationism as it is a call for a return to intellectual freedom.

Like the "freedom", as indense has pointed out, of expelling PZ Myers from Expelled, after David Mathis tricked him into starring in the film under a false pretense? Richard Dawkins has a delightful story about this.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Art, I'm really not sure if your post is snark or not.

From the reviews that I've read, Stein's movie primarily about blaming Charles Darwin for the Nazi Holocaust.
And the movie is openly a call for creationism to be taught in science classes which has put the producers in a direct conflict with the Discovery Institute (the main pusher and funder of the "Intelligent Design" theory) who have long argued that ID is not religious. Of course, the Dover School Board ruling kind of put an end to that argument.

exactly. that's why i opened the thread with my humorous remark about darwin inventing evolution. the problem with having ID or creationism is that it's baseless. lets also not forget how those that push the junk also twist reality around to support their ideas; twists like how the grand canyon was carved out during noah's flood a few thousand years ago, bananas where designed for us by god and how a jar of peanut butter disproves evolution, etc.

Like the "freedom", as indense has pointed out, of expelling PZ Myers from Expelled, after David Mathis tricked him into starring in the film under a false pretense? Richard Dawkins has a delightful story about this.

Anyone interested in finding out more about this hilariously inept piece of propaganda should be reading PZ Myers at Pharyngula (if, for some reason, you don't already read PZ every day!).

LOL! i know. myers was expelled but dawkins was unnoticed.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Art, I'm really not sure if your post is snark or not.

From the reviews that I've read, Stein's movie primarily about blaming Charles Darwin for the Nazi Holocaust.
And the movie is openly a call for creationism to be taught in science classes which has put the producers in a direct conflict with the Discovery Institute (the main pusher and funder of the "Intelligent Design" theory) who have long argued that ID is not religious. Of course, the Dover School Board ruling kind of put an end to that argument.

My post was made in all seriousness. I haven't seen Stein's movie but I stand by my comments for the need for academic and intellectual freedom. Suzuki suggested politicians who don't buy into his theory be jailed. (He later said he was just kidding.) Not the most appropriate comment from someone whose family was interned in WWII.

I am a proud climate change denier and have every confidence that in due time the global warming alarmists will be proven wrong. The process has already started -global temperatures have stopped rising. The Suzuki crowd will say this winter was an aberration and tell us not to confuse weather with climate but what will they say during summer's first heat wave? They will of course argue this is proof positive of our degradation of the planet. Watch for it. Its going to happen.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

My post was made in all seriousness. I haven't seen Stein's movie but I stand by my comments for the need for academic and intellectual freedom. Suzuki suggested politicians who don't buy into his theory be jailed. (He later said he was just kidding.) Not the most appropriate comment from someone whose family was interned in WWII.

I am a proud climate change denier and have every confidence that in due time the global warming alarmists will be proven wrong. The process has already started -global temperatures have stopped rising. The Suzuki crowd will say this winter was an aberration and tell us not to confuse weather with climate but what will they say during summer's first heat wave? They will of course argue this is proof positive of our degradation of the planet. Watch for it. Its going to happen.

lets not turn this into a global warming thread please. i'm one of those middle of the road guys that doesn't know which way to swing on global warming. scientists from both sides, those pro and con the global warming issue have been chastised. scientists are wrong in many cases and time + new evidence will tell. that is the beauty of science, it's the process where things are investigated and tested and sometimes the conclusions based on the available data are wrong or will be proven wrong with the advent of new data. the problem with religion, creationism & ID is that there is no way to test the claims (they're never wrong), there's pretty much no data to analyze. many of the claims made by ID'ers are false and bias, downright lies. they want you to base things on faith rather than evidence. ID is not interested in finding truth, ID is interested in skewing reality to support the notion of a supreme being.



if news reporters relied on dreams and a crystal ball to tell the news instead of investigation & journalism and they got fired, is the news company that did the firing intolerant?

 

[Hydrogen]

Well, if god is responsible for the whole show, and not evolution, then god made Darwin. If Darwin's ideas caused the Holocaust, then one has to ask about he/she/them who made Darwin.



I rest my case, yerhonour.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Well, if god is responsible for the whole show, and not evolution, then god made Darwin. If Darwin's ideas caused the Holocaust, then one has to ask about he/she/them who made Darwin.



I rest my case, yerhonour.

oh the world was such a loving and peaceful place before darwin invented his evolution. nobody ever wanted to exterminate another group of people before. everyone got along just fine.

damn you evolution!

 

[Art Vandelay]

oh the world was such a loving and peaceful place before darwin invented his evolution. nobody ever wanted to exterminate another group of people before. everyone got along just fine.

damn you evolution!

The world has always been a violent place where the strong have preyed on the weak. Darwin didn't make it so he only explained why in a book he subtitled "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

The use of the phrase "favoured races" in the subtitle should be your first clue that this theory could be used to justify violence.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

The world has always been a violent place where the strong have preyed on the weak. Darwin didn't make it so he only explained why in a book he subtitled "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

The use of the phrase "favoured races" in the subtitle should be your first clue that this theory could be used to justify violence.

from wikipedia:

On 20 July 1858 Darwin started work on an "abstract" trimmed from his Natural Selection, writing much of it from memory. Lyell made arrangements with the publisher John Murray, who agreed to publish the manuscript sight unseen, and to pay Darwin two-thirds of the net proceeds. Darwin had initially decided to call his book An abstract of an Essay/on the/Origin/of/Species and Varieties/Through natural selection/, but with Murray's persuasion it was eventually changed to the snappier title: On the Origin of Species with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, a long book title as was common during the Victorian era. Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races – the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", and Darwin proceeds to discuss "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants".

 

[Hydrogen]

All joking aside, Darwin never sought to directly explain social-cultural events like genocide. Evolutionary psychologists are presently generating some insight into this phenomena. "Race" was being employed along the lines of "species," and the selective process being examined was the "natural" processes by which speciation happened. Darwin prefaced this explanation by illustrating selection processes at work in an artificial context; showing that what we call a "species" is, in fact, quite plastic and can be shaped by selective breeding.

It's a brilliant piece of work.

 

[TOinTO]

Science has been a poweful force for good because it never allowed itself to be co-opted by preconcieved ideas or notions.

Sorry, but that comment displays considerable ignorance of the history of science. You think there was a golden age when scientists lived in a intellectual vacuum - uninfluenced by their culture and environment? Right. That's why so much science up until WWII was devoted to ranking human races by various measures. And that's why, by whatever measure (e.g. cranial capacity), whites always came out on top!

Science works by fairly complex social mechanisms on top of the hypothesis - experiment loop. I believe that falsehoods tend to get weeded out, over time, but every age and every field has its orthodoxies.

Evolution through natural selection is a pretty solid bit of science. Its observable through experimentation; in changes occurring around us in the natural world and it is recorded in the fossil record. Its mechanisms are understood at a biochemical level.

I wonder why creationists didn't protest when G. Bush devoted money to the prevention of avian flu in humans. According to them, humans will never get avian flu because that would require that the virus evolves - and species are fixed.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

BTW, a christian made that video.