Ben Stein Movie Re: Intelligent Design & Scientists Coming February 2008
by Justitia Themis 10 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
-
funkyderek
There will be lots of contributions from eminent scientists, almost certainly dishonestly edited as is apparently typical of creationist film-makers.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/D/Dean,%20Cornelia&oref=slogin for details on this deception.
As creationist propaganda goes, it's not a bad idea in today's world to paint their irrelevance in scientific research and academia as oppression of a minority group rather than a refusal to cheapen science by giving equal time to those whose opinions are based on superstition and wishful thinking. I'm sure it will do very well in America's red states and the Middle East.
-
Shawn10538
I think he is making a straw man argument if I'm not mistaken. The fact is that no one is PERSECUTING Intelligent Design people. The Scientific default stance is skepticism, so they are just as skeptical about evolution as they are about creationism... IDEALLY. And I'm not saying scientists are particularly moral people but they usually are very beholden to the scientific method - it is their Bible. If there are professors who are not being given tenure, then it might be because they can't present empirical evidence of their position. I'n not saying there isn't such evidence, I don't know. But if a professor came up to me and made the statement, "I believe in creation because the Bible says so, or because I have faith that it is so." I would drop his class and file a complaint against him or her. Not because I disagree with his conclusions, but because he shows no comprehension of the scientific method as well as publishing an idea with sketchy journalistic ethics.
The makers of the film are not being very discreet in showing that they are biased from the get go. I think he's creating a controversy where there is none. The scientific position waits for empirical evidence to present itself before they adopt a belief... IDEALLY. Due to the RULES on causation, we must be able to show a link between the evidence and our conclusions, the cause and effect.
The religious stance is opposite of that, they start believing first, then they search for scientific evidence to support them AFTER they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. I've never heard of a person coming to know Christ because they researched science and the science pointed to Jesus. But, as far as the religious way, it seems pointless to look for scientific support of their claims. You have already accepted Jesus as your personal lord and savior, so you won't be looking at the lack of evidence of his existence and the mythological argument that since the story of Jesus was told for thousands of years before the first century making the Jesus story a myth because it is just a bastardization of the original myth. They will only look for evidence that supports their faith, and they close their minds to anything critical of that. This is contrary to the scientific method and journalistically unsound.
Still, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I definitely will see it. It is a very important topic in the culture wars. -
Shawn10538
I think Ben Stein is making a straw man argument if I'm not mistaken. The fact is that no one is PERSECUTING Intelligent Design people. The Scientific default stance is skepticism, so they are just as skeptical about evolution as they are about creationism... IDEALLY. And I'm not saying scientists are particularly moral people but they usually are very beholden to the scientific method - it is their Bible. If there are professors who are not being given tenure, then it might be because they can't present empirical evidence of their position. I'n not saying there isn't such evidence, I don't know. But if a professor came up to me and made the statement, "I believe in creation because the Bible says so, or because I have faith that it is so." I would drop his class and file a complaint against him or her. Not because I disagree with his conclusions, but because he shows no comprehension of the scientific method as well as publishing an idea with sketchy journalistic ethics.
The makers of the film are not being very discreet in showing that they are biased from the get go. I think he's creating a controversy where there is none. The scientific position waits for empirical evidence to present itself before they adopt a belief... IDEALLY. Due to the RULES on causation, we must be able to show a link between the evidence and our conclusions, the cause and effect.
The religious stance is opposite of that, they start believing first, then they search for scientific evidence to support them AFTER they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. I've never heard of a person coming to know Christ because they researched science and the science pointed to Jesus. But, as far as the religious way, it seems pointless to look for scientific support of their claims. You have already accepted Jesus as your personal lord and savior, so you won't be looking at the lack of evidence of his existence and the mythological argument that since the story of Jesus was told for thousands of years before the first century making the Jesus story a myth because it is just a bastardization of the original myth. They will only look for evidence that supports their faith, and they close their minds to anything critical of that. This is contrary to the scientific method and journalistically unsound.
Still, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I definitely will see it. It is a very important topic in the culture wars. -
B_Deserter
"and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance."
I am sick and tired of this straw man argument. Natural Selection is neither accidental nor random. It is no more "random chance" than lightning hitting a lightning rod is. -
B_Deserter
I have never, not even once, seen anyone provide any real, tangible reason to believe in God. Everyone who tries falls into a briar patch of logical fallacies and premises that have been thoroughly debunked for over 150 years. The latest "debate" I saw, the people in the God camp lost in their opening statement, since they appealed to the Bible even though the agreed-upon ground rules stated that they would prove God's existence without using it. And yet, these pseudo-scientist play the "persecution" card when they're not even being persecuted! It's a freaking JOKE. Seriously, it's like a white man complaining about racism towards white people. Yeah, you have it so tough when you belong to the same group the people in the highest echelons of power in this country do. Want to teach creationism or ID? Fine, just keep it out of the science classroom, because it is absolutely, positively, NOT science.
-
Perry
I personally cant wait until it comes out. Expose the fascists!!
-
SacrificialLoon
The graffiti X makes it edgy!
-
funkyderek
Perry:
I personally cant wait until it comes out. Expose the fascists!!
No surprises there. You're exactly the audience they're seeking, someone who adamantly refuses to believe in evolution for ideological reasons and can't see the difference between those who require beliefs to be based on evidence and "fascists". Don't worry, you'll come out of the movie with exactly the same beliefs you go in with. You're just that kind of guy!