Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[Holden McGroin]

How many have been killed because of flying bombers?

Not one as far as I can tell.  They were killed by exploding bombs or bombers that quit flying.

[Lumpy]

 

[SkyRock]

It's a strong theory because the predictions are overwhelmingly being validated.

Here's a very recent example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm.

The prediction from evolution theory is that snakes evolved from legged creatures at some point and if this is true, we should find fossil evidence of snake-like creatures with remnant legs. Guess what - we've found such fossil evidence. This one even has ankle bones. No magic. A strong theory tells us what we should expect, and our expectations are born out. That's called science.

This is also an excellent example of debate within the theory. There are two different hypotheses about how snakes evolved. One suggests that burrowing land lizards stopped needing legs, the other that they came from marine reptiles. The fact that this debate exists in no way undermines the theory of evolution. It is about some specific details. This discovery supports the first hypothesis. The wonder of science is that evidence may be found that supports both: some snakes may have an evolutional origin on land, others may be more closely related to sea reptiles. If predictions from both  interests turn out to be true, that may further our understanding of how two origins may adapt similarly producing very similar special outcomes.

Now, on the creationist side - if we want to apply the scientific method  - we predict that, because the serpent in the Garden of Eden talked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, and thereafter God cursed it to slithering on its belly, we should find fossil evidence of a snakelike creature with fully formed legs and a fully functioning larynx. I guess we're still waiting on that one.

Furthermore, because God smote the legs off of the creature and all its offspring in an act of spite, we should NOT find fossil evidence of any transitional creatures. Oops.

I am astounded by this.   Thumbs up!

[iWalrus]

Fossils of soft-celled organisms from before, during, and after the Cambrian period survived yet fossils of predecessors to animals that show up in the Cambrian period do not survive?

There are are fossils predating the the Cambrian period (~500 million years ago). There is an entire scientific field called precambrian paleobiology that, in part, dedicates itself to the study of the extensive Precambrian fossil record. We have discovered fossils that range from 3.5 Billion years old right up the the beginning of the Cambrian period.

Now if you're referring specifically to multicellular forms of life, there are those as well. Ediacara biota were such life, and they are found in the Precambrian fossil record well before the "Cambrian Explosion".

Many Creationists use the rapid emergence of complex animals during the Cambrian period to pinpoint the "divine creation of life where there previously was none". It is interesting to note that no such "explosion" takes place in the plant kingdom.  There is a clear and steady emergence of plant species, with a wealth of transitional fossils, throughout the fossil record.

Wouldn't an explosion of plant life occur as well? I mean, they were designed too, right?

[iWalrus]

It's a strong theory because the predictions are overwhelmingly being validated.

Here's a very recent example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm.

The prediction from evolution theory is that snakes evolved from legged creatures at some point and if this is true, we should find fossil evidence of snake-like creatures with remnant legs. Guess what - we've found such fossil evidence. This one even has ankle bones. No magic. A strong theory tells us what we should expect, and our expectations are born out. That's called science.

This is also an excellent example of debate within the theory. There are two different hypotheses about how snakes evolved. One suggests that burrowing land lizards stopped needing legs, the other that they came from marine reptiles. The fact that this debate exists in no way undermines the theory of evolution. It is about some specific details. This discovery supports the first hypothesis. The wonder of science is that evidence may be found that supports both: some snakes may have an evolutional origin on land, others may be more closely related to sea reptiles. If predictions from both  interests turn out to be true, that may further our understanding of how two origins may adapt similarly producing very similar special outcomes.

Now, on the creationist side - if we want to apply the scientific method  - we predict that, because the serpent in the Garden of Eden talked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, and thereafter God cursed it to slithering on its belly, we should find fossil evidence of a snakelike creature with fully formed legs and a fully functioning larynx. I guess we're still waiting on that one.

Furthermore, because God smote the legs off of the creature and all its offspring in an act of spite, we should NOT find fossil evidence of any transitional creatures. Oops.

Green eggs and ham for me too please. 

[moot]

Donzo just give in and admit you can't help but tend to use scientific method, however misplaced in a religious errand...

[moot]

As a matter of fact, it's a distinct trait of religious conditioning to single out and focus on one truth trumping all others, in this case "Darwinisms" as the one and only target amidst all of science... If science was so bad, why, it's the scientific, empirical, rational, methods all together that'd be targeted.. Instead, it's one poor bloke who happened to hit so near to a bullseye that for probably a century, his name is still ringing.
Yesterday Galileo, today Darwin, tomorrow who knows..  With each recant of superstition and each partial retreat of exactly what the parables of religion refer to materialy, crackpots and loonies get less and less cred.  There's no fooling nature or reason.

[lazs2]

leslie..your poem says it well.

those of you who say that science can't admit the possibility of the supernatural are admitting that, at least in that respect, science is flawed.  science can't measure beauty or love... even tho they have their theories.. science doesn't know how the universe came about yet they claim to.. science can't tell us how much oil is on the planet or where it comes from or even... what the global temp will be next year on this day.. or next month for that matter.

science may someday be able to measure what is now called the supernatural.. at that point they will except it... I am just jumping ahead of them a bit because.. I have watched them be wrong so many times just in my short lifetime.

I am grateful to science for what it has given us and forgive it for the evil it has wrought.   I bet there were snakes with legs.. that doesn't mean there were soulless monkey men.   Them being 99% sure of anything doesn't impress me in the big picture stuff that they don't have the ability to measure or understand.

those who say that they have the only god.. may be right.. I don't think so but... Who am I to call em a liar?   those who say there is no god.. well.. they simply can't be right..  they fail to see around them or are angry with god or.. have never needed god.   Most will find their god.

If someone sees ghosts.. I find it facinating.  I don't see em but I can't say they don't   If religion makes you happy.. if your god makes you happy.. it is good.. if not.. it is bad.. just as..

If your science makes you tremble in fear at every turn.. if doom and gloom are all your science has to offer then it is a bad thing.   

I believe that god comes to us in a personal way.. that we can all feel his presence if we are open to it.   Science seeks to close us up to it..or at least the science that the angry people here on this board want.. they want science to give them a chance to crush god... to make fun of those who have faith.. to get some sort of revenge for real or imagined slights to them by religious people or god himself.  It is sad and pathetic IMO.

Why not simply be happy a fellow human has found comfort in his god?   why not allow what most people feel in their hearts.. they existence of a creator.. to be not taught, but at least mentioned with respect in schools?  I certainly would not feel harmed.. why would you?

lazs

[moot]

those of you who say that science can't admit the possibility of the supernatural are admitting that, at least in that respect, science is flawed. 

No, Lazs.  It's not science that's flawed, it's the people that pretend science says that -- but it doesn't.  Science is a method that, just like I said earlier, can be followed only as well as the person attempting to.  If they stray from its path, it's not science that they're doing anymore.
Science makes nothing of the supernatural.  It doesn't say it exists or not.  That's beyond science's scope.. Like I said, if someone pretends otherwise, he's a crook.  Just as politicians will pledge to be true to the Constitution, so can 'scientists' pledge to be true to science, and doctors true to the Hippocratic oath, and Christians true to God's word, and yet go astray from 'the path'.

[Samiam]

Lazs, it's not a matter of science admitting the possibility of the supernatural. Science simply IGNORES the supernatural because it does not apply - by DEFINITION. For this discussion, there's not even a judgment call over right or wrong, just that the supernatural excludes science because it is not concerned with predictable, observable, measurable results. Again, as soon as you can predict, observe, test, and measure something, by definition it is no longer supernatural.

Where we get hung up, mostly, is not whether there are supernatural explanations to phenomena that are true, but whether we introduce those explanations into the realm of science and even go so far as to include supernatural explanations in our science curriculum.

The supernatural excludes science. Science excludes the supernatural. This by definition, not by bias or arbitrariness.

Let's say we go ahead and REDEFINE science to include the supernatural, and accept this redefined science as school curriculum and a basis for higher research:

Now, I want a more effective treatment for cancer. Or, I want a faster graphics card. We call on this redefined science to help. Do we establish a research group to pray for the treatment and expect it to appear in our pharmacies one day? Do create a laboratory to light incense near computers and rub them with special oils and expect them to get faster? Do we publish journals on how special dances with ceremonial headdresses increase the throughput of fiber optic networks? Those are now valid scientific approaches.

At some point, if we wish to advance our understanding of the natural universe and make medical breakthroughs and have faster computers and networks, we need to have a discipline that IGNORES the supernatural and seeks to find predictable, observable, measurable, testable explanations wherever we can. Now that we've redefined science to be something else, we need to give this discipline a new name. But whatever we call it, it is necessary AND it BY DEFINITION ignores supernatural explanations.

I suppose we can argue that it's not necessary to have this disciple that ignores the supernatural and that having this discipline creates a soulless society. I think there are plenty of examples of cultures who have made that choice (Afghanistan under the Taliban) and I'm quite glad that the western world and particularly the U.S. (so far) has not.

What I don't quite understand is how the strongly pious can't appreciate the huge rewards they've reaped by living in a society where some do have the discipline to ignore the supernatural in pursuit of a scientific understanding of the world. I, for one, am glad that science has figured out how to create drought and disease resistant grains so I don't have to fear my daughter being sacrificed on the altar to ensure a good wheat crop this year.

[lazs2]

samiam.. I am content with science ignoring the supernatural..  just as I ignore ghosts say.

That is not what they are doing tho.  they are declaring war on it.   Just as some people enjoy making fun of those who have seen ghosts or bigfoot or auras or whatever.. they are not "ignoring".

Why does science have to be the only thing taught?  is there no room for the mention of ID in schools?  Is it so impossible that it needs to be censored?   certainly in our schools that waste so much time.. a few sentences about the fact that many.. if not most.. people here believe in ID would be appropriate.

It just makes science look bad if they are so protective of themselves that they forbid any other theory outside of science.

lazs

[moot]

There is room for ID, but not in science curiculums.  Not unless we stray from the definition of science, the same way people stray from it when they pretend to have scientific proof that god doesn't exist.
'Theory' is an element of science, you can't have one outside of it

[Samiam]

Lazs, some of us may think that the war declaration is the other way around...

(Personally, I'm not making fun of supernatural beliefs per se. But I confess to making of those beliefs being represented as science.)

When Ben Stein claims that IDers are ostracized in the scientific community, he's not really wrong. But they are not being ostracized for their beliefs. They are being ostracized for representing those beliefs as good science, which - are you getting sick of reading this - BY DEFINITION they aren't. Complaining about someone who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution not having status in the scientific community is like complaining about a jewish person not being allowed into the Catholic priesthood.

Does it make the Catholics look bad that a muslim who does not believe in the resurrection of Christ cannot become pope?

I'm not at all against teaching ID in schools. BUT IT IS NOT SCIENCE. You CANNOT teach ID as part of a science discipline. It's a supernatural explanation. Teach it as such under religious studies, or something. In science class you can say: "We are going to learn about the theory of evolution, which is well supported and explains a lot about our world. There are NON SCIENTIFIC explanations to the same phenomena that you can learn about elsewhere, but since they deal with the supernatural, we don't cover them in this SCIENCE class."

[lazs2]

I never said teach it.   I only said that it needed to be put out there as a theory.  Any science that does not recognize the possibility of things it can't measure or comprehend is simply a bad...or.. limited disipline.

Of course it is impossible to teach ID using the restricted and limited scientific method.  I am asking science to step outside their narrow confines and simply recognize that there are things.. or at least the possibility of things that it can not measure or understand... at the very least.. at this time.   I am not asking them to spend a great deal of time on it.. how could they since it is not really understood?  I am merely asking them to admit that many believe in things supernatural.. that it is a theory that they can neither prove not disprove with their current limits.

certainly.. a few minutes spent on this would not be a "waste" considering all the other waste at schools?

lazs

[SkyRock]

I'm not at all against teaching ID in schools. BUT IT IS NOT SCIENCE. You CANNOT teach ID as part of a science discipline. It's a supernatural explanation. Teach it as such under religious studies, or something. In science class you can say: "We are going to learn about the theory of evolution, which is well supported and explains a lot about our world. There are NON SCIENTIFIC explanations to the same phenomena that you can learn about elsewhere, but since they deal with the supernatural, we don't cover them in this SCIENCE class."

This is very close to how I approached the evolution curriculum when I was teaching science.  I always started the studies with something like this, "We are going to be studying the theory of evolution.  You may have a different belief that is in contrast to what we are going to study.  You may have religious beliefs that are different from what we are going to study.  This is a science class and we will study only the science.  If something you learn in here is discomforting to your beliefs, you should talk with your parents about it or your religious leader.  We will be studying only the science."