Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[moot]

Donzo, hang on, I'll be back when I'm sober.

Lazs, absolutely.  Science will never explain what's outside of its bounds.  But if ever there were some people pretending that religion had sovereignty in the realm of science... That would be equaly mistaken.
I think you have things down pat, way more than some of the people pushing ID/Creationism, anyway.

[moot]

there were any scientists at the time that believed it, taught it and argued with anyone that didn't believe it?

Would you expect any less from someone arguing their data?

Hell... do you think the church came up with the idea that things likelyness to float was based on their shape or do you think a group convinced the church this was the way it was? What do you think that group would do when shown to be wrong?
Just admit it and move on?

Admit scientific method is an ever advancing process, that intends to prove its own hypothesies and theories wrong over and over, not towards some eventual perfect theory, but towards an infinite progress in accuracy?  Yes.

The problem with evolution is it's being touted as science. It is not. It is religion. The amount of data needed to even remotely support theories with 1 in a trillion chances is staggering. "It could happen" is not science. Evolution is "the earth is flat" belief of the 20th century.

Absolutely false.  Evolution is a theory, not a religion. If some people take it as gospel, that's THEIR error and problem, not science's.

Just look at how persecuted those are that don't believe it.

Back this up with evidence.

[AKIron]

Donzo, hang on, I'll be back when I'm sober.

Lazs, absolutely.  Science will never explain what's outside of its bounds.  But if ever there were some people pretending that religion had sovereignty in the realm of science... That would be equaly mistaken.
I think you have things down pat, way more than some of the people pushing ID/Creationism, anyway.

Science is only as good as the reasonableness and objectivity of the mind in which it is held. When that mind becomes closed to the possibility of a universe created by an all knowing intelligence it's science suffers, imo.

[moot]

No.  Logic has some very clear rules that would have been refuted by now, if they were flawed.  Science is absolutely true to those rules. 
If "some mind" which holds the ideal of science fails to be true to it, it's not science's suffering, it's that mind's. 

Science NEVER has been closed to the possibility of a universe created by an all knowing intelligence.  It just isn't included in science's domain.

[AKIron]

No.  Logic has some very clear rules that would have been refuted by now, if they were flawed.  Science is absolutely true to those rules. 
If "some mind" which holds the ideal of science fails to be true to it, it's not science's suffering, it's that mind's. 

Science NEVER has been closed to the possibility of a universe created by an all knowing intelligence.  It just isn't included in science's domain.

"Science" does not exist outside the mind of man. Many men who claim to be scientists have indeed closed their mind to the possibility of a divine creator.

[Mini D]

Scientific method is an advancing process. It is not evolution. Evolution is not scientific method based. There is some application of science in it, but nothing that actually supports it. Science is a token gesture with theory being the driving force. Theory not based on science, but the belief that it is impossible that the universe was created, thus it must have happened this way. Evolutionists like you are insisting there isn't a god based on our inability to prove his existance while maintaining something that you are unable to prove is fact.

As you have satated, science is a tool, not a religion. You'll notice I only refer to evolution as a religion. You maintain it is not. What is clear, however, is that EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE. IT IS NOT SCIENCE VS RELIGION. IT IS ONE BELIEF VS ANOTHER.

As for evidence... read this thread. If you can't see it, you're simply ignorant. Religion is the force that holds back science. It always has been. At least... that's what you'd believe if you've actually read what you and myelo have posted (and MT in every other thread on the subject). I'm sure the terms "religious wacko" is simply something I've imagined. I'm sure the drive to seperate religion from state (not church... religion) is just something I'm imagining too. Yep... no evidence there.

[moot]

Iron,
What would you have men do, better than follow logic?  
That many men have closed their mind to the possibility of a divine creator means nothing to the validity of logical rhetorics.

Evolution is not scientific method based. There is some application of science in it, but nothing that actually supports it.

Evidence?

Evolution is not scientific method based. There is some application of science in it, but nothing that actually supports it.

Evidence?

EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE. IT IS NOT SCIENCE VS RELIGION. IT IS ONE BELIEF VS ANOTHER.

Evidence?

As for evidence... read this thread. If you can't see it, you're simply ignorant.

Funny. I'm not ignorant. I'm open to any and all evidence. I will follow the trail of evidence. Anything which can be proven as most likely will have my attention. All that matters to me is truth.

[Mini D]

Ever had a dog? All domesticated dog breeds are the result of selectively breeding wolves. Selectively bred by humans to promote whatever traits their masters desired; survival of the cutest. That's how evolution works in nature too ... selectively breeding to promote survival. I.e. survival of the fittest.

LOL! You might want to avoid using man as the catalyst for evolution arguments... it kinda defeats the purpose. Inherent gentics are explanations for micro evolution which is subtractive... not additive. The act of breeding to re-direct genetic traits implies that the recessive genetics were present already, not that new genetic traits were devoloped.

[moot]

Some people would have reason trumped by faith because reason was abused in a few freak cases. A certain abuse doesn't justify prohibition of general use.

The act of breeding to re-direct genetic traits implies that the recessive genetics were present already, not that new genetic traits were devoloped.

Are you saying that it couldn't have happened if man hadn't made it happen?  The genetic material is there, vulnerable to any natural alteration, be it by some cosmic ray altering one bit, or natural agent such as Man "purposedly" altering one or many bits of it.

[AKIron]

What would you have men do, better than follow logic?  
That many men have closed their mind to the possibility of a divine creator means nothing to the validity of logical rhetorics.

Logic is not an external truth to be sought. It is a process whereby one is willing to forgo preconceptions in order to gain a better understanding one's situation. The searcher for truth must be willing to reexamine every "fact" upon which his search is built. To do less it is to seek a specific goal without regard to reality and is not science.

[moot]

Logic is not an external truth to be sought. It is a process whereby one is willing to forgo preconceptions in order to gain a better understanding one's situation. The searcher for truth must be willing to reexamine every "fact" upon which his search is built. To do less it is to seek a specific goal without regard to reality and is not science.

Understanding is a consequence of REASON. Reason is consequent to logic. Logic is the criteria that produces truth.

The searcher for truth must be willing to reexamine every "fact" upon which his search is built. To do less it is to seek a specific goal without regard to reality and is not science.

Which (in bold) is exactly what ID/Creationists do, deciding prejudicialy to find a religious echo of their faith in scientific data, and ignoring Science in the process.


The universe is a great thing.  That God made it is not something science will dispute.
That man will (erroneously) dispute science as refuting religion is his own mistake, not science's.

[AKIron]

I'm may not be making myself clear. Science is not an institution, true science is the search for truth, nothing more and nothing less.

[lambo31]

 Of course science is ever advancing, and I'm thankful for that. And your right that there are scientist that believed in a Creator and have changed their mind, and then there are scientist that didn't believe and their research led them to believe that a Creator was the only explanation that made sense. I still hold to the fact that our presuppositions determines how we look at the data that is a result of science. I don't believe in Evolution, or maybe I should say "particles to people Evolution". It is a hypothesis or conjecture at best.


Lambo

[moot]

I'm may not be making myself clear. Science is not an institution, true science is the search for truth, nothing more and nothing less.

You should explicit your distinguishment of truth and Truth (as you've referred to before), then.

[moot]

their research led them to believe that a Creator was the only explanation that made sense. I still hold to the fact that our presuppositions determines how we look at the data that is a result of science. I don't believe in Evolution, or maybe I should say "particles to people Evolution".

Bold shows the critical departure from science.

It is a hypothesis or conjecture at best.

Evidence?
I'll go out on a limb in this specific case: You will be proven wrong on this assertion, just as flat earthers were.  What you fail to see is the ever supernatural parable that religion provides.  Religious theory such as scripture predicts nothing in the realm of science.
You don't know science. Don't pretend to.