Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

[SkyRock]

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

religious theories should never enter the science classroom.  There has been too much wasted time and sacrafice getting the church out of science in the past to open those gates again.

[AKIron]

Plenty of dogmatism in both religion and science. Few practice purely either religion or science. Arrogance is definitely a learning inhibitor.

[Torque]

sure people use religion as a crutch to get by in life... just like people use alcohol and drugs to get by as well...it doesn't mean they can't be called out on it tho.

but like i said before... religion is just selective atheism by dishonest people... and they can't admit to the existence of more than one god or their pious fraud gets exposed.

then you have those wacko elitists types that think their own personal god created the whole universe just for them... and their god has a special plan all just for them.

i have more faith in my fellow man that i deal with everyday than any of these numerous gods the religious paparazzi tout on about... to think humans are born inherently evil and need an invisible friend to set them on a morale path is just santa claus nonsense.

besides all these gods sound like rather vain lonely creatures... their sole purpose in creating mankind on a tiny spit of dirt in the vast universe precariously living on a knife's edge... is so they themselves could all be adored loved and worshiped.

[lambo31]

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.

That fossil is an awesome find and imho shows God's creativity even more as if we didn't have enough already. I think assuming it was a transitional fossil to the modern snake is a bit hasty, but could very well be.
Quoting from another board: "Vestigials, when they occur, are the loss of structures or the functions of structures. Creation says God created everything "very good" in the beginning. It has all been going downhill since, due to man's rebellion. The loss of many things, including parts and functions, is part of that downhill slide, and it is perfectly consistent with creation. In fact it would be predicted by creation as being in concordance with Romans 8:20-22."
 And it could just be a type of snake with legs, imagine if the Boa died out as little as a 5000 years ago and we found a fossil of it. I bet the same things would be said about it.

Lambo

[lazs2]

torque.. you sound pretty arrogant.. able to understand what god is or thinks..  how are you different from a fundamentalist?

I will accept the possiblility of all gods being the true god..  who am I to say god does not manifest himself in different ways to different people.. who am I to claim to know his intent?

Skyrock.. I think that is the best explanation I have heard yet.. that it took you so long to get religion out of science that you fear letting it get it's nose under the tent.   I understand the fear of science... it struggles to act like it understands or that at least, all things can be measured and weighed and disected.. all things are simply waiting to have their mysteries solved by science.. it is understandable that fear would be the result of such a way of thinking.

To me.. if someone says they believe in god and a creator of all things..  that should not mean that science is left out or even evolution.. science is very important... so far as it goes...

When it claims to have the only answer.. that is where I see the weakness.

Someone claimed that somehow.. science and the supernatural could not coexist.. that you couldn't cure cancer or help people if you prayed instead of did the science... that is silly.. you can do both.. the person who is doing the science need only note one more factor that happening.. this has been done before.. tests (with various results) on healing with and without prayer.. not sure god would play this game but... there have been scientific tests.. they have even tried to weigh the soul... so...

Scientists have not ignored the supernatural.. they simply have admitted defeat in most cases.  The defeat causes them to be frustrated and fearful and the kind of censorship we see in the pitiful academics.. and lets admit it.. these are not well adjusted or moral people...  they are spiteful and arrogant and fearful.. very few professors are worth a damn as people.

lazs

[moot]

"I never said teach it.   I only said that it needed to be put out there as a theory."
Lazs it can't be a theory because there's nothing to say about it, not scientificaly.   Not anymore than you can have a theory of God. There's no such thing as an unscientific theory. Science can't step out of the bounds of reason and logic and remain science at the same time.  
It's not that science doesn't recognize religion, it's that science doesn't apply to the supernatural. The only value of scientific data is scientific.  You can't have science backing religious theology

Lambo, you're mixing religion and science.

[SkyRock]

Skyrock.. I think that is the best explanation I have heard yet.. that it took you so long to get religion out of science that you fear letting it get it's nose under the tent.   I understand the fear of science... it struggles to act like it understands or that at least, all things can be measured and weighed and disected.. all things are simply waiting to have their mysteries solved by science.. it is understandable that fear would be the result of such a way of thinking.


lazs

Lazs, so you think I am afraid of religion?  Is this your explanation of why I'm afraid of religion? 

I don't fear religion at all, just as I dont fear the afterlife!  History teaches us about the negative effects that an all powerful church can have on mankind.  There are too many instances to list of how the ignorance of religion has held back progress of the human race.  I understand the benefits of religion and even try to live my life by the words of jesus on the sermon on the mount, but it has no place in Science.  Science is a different bird altogether. 

I think you are jealous of smart people.







PS   Here is a passage from the bible on how to deal with your kids if they are disobediant:

 Deuteronomy 21:18-21

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, (19) his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. (20) They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." (21) Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

God's word.

[lambo31]

"I never said teach it.   I only said that it needed to be put out there as a theory."
Lazs it can't be a theory because there's nothing to say about it, not scientificaly.   Not anymore than you can have a theory of God. There's no such thing as an unscientific theory. Science can't step out of the bounds of reason and logic and remain science at the same time.  
It's not that science doesn't recognize religion, it's that science doesn't apply to the supernatural. The only value of scientific data is scientific.  You can't have science backing religious theology

Lambo, you're mixing religion and science.

No, I didn't. God did, I just believe him    Look again at the article I posted several posts back on presuppositions.  You see, I believe science confirms the Bible.

edit: article is on page 14 of this thread

Lambo

[moot]

No, I didn't. God did, I just believe him 

You did.  You don't know God's word.  Muslims have a book too, and so do other religions.  They all say the same thing.  'Our book/artifact is evidence of God's will'.   What is your proof for being the one religion that's right, out of all religions?  You don't have one. 
What is the proof that any of these religions have it right?  There isn't any.  It's all faith.

In you article, you say Evolutionists have beliefs about God.  They don't.  Science doesn't make any supposition whatsoever about God (*). The premise for your article is false, but let's run thru another bit of it anyway:
'Glasses': What glasses?  The only glasses 'evolutionists' look through is science. Science is logic, reason.  Religion is faith.  There's no common ground for these two optics to compare observations because one looks at the rational, empirical aspects, the other looks at the religious, supernatural aspects.  What is there to compare?   
Another thing, you say 'evolutionists' like it's some sort of breed of men.  It's not.  Evolution is a theory, an idea that's for the time being is the best fitting model to data.  There's no other reason for any special relationship between the distribution of religion and scientific ideas in this population of people (people who harbor an idea of Darwinist Evolution as the best model of natural evolution), other than maybe some mistaken understanding that the two are mutualy exclusive. 
The two ideas are independent.

I don't have the patience to read the rest of the article. The logical aberrance in your post is bad enough. You believe science backs up the bible.  You don't have proof.  There's no scientific proof of anything supernatural, can you understand that?

* It doesn't say it exists, nor does it say that it doesn't exist.  The people who Lazs says won't admit that there's something beyond science or that 'admit defeat' against religious ideas aren't representative of science. 
In the first case, refusing to admit that there's something beyond science is not a matter of science, it's a matter of faith.  That's not science talking when they say refuse to admit the possibility of something supernatural, that's faith.
Second, to admit defeat in front of religious ideas, you need a conflict.  There's no such thing between:
The systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities
and
The belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.

Systematic study, and belief and worship.  No conflict.

[AKIron]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

-Hamlet

[moot]

None of em will pass for much more than fancies of the mind upon study.

[Mini D]

The religion of evolution is based on assumptions that are suported by so relatively few datapoints that calling it science is laughable. That is not to say that science is not a part of the evolutionary argument, but it is used in much the same manner that any religion would choose to use it... only when it suits them. I've noticed this with several fossil discoveries... a fossile is fit into an intermediate filling position based on preconceived notions rather than science. There's no real proof that the "intermediary creature" was anything more than a deformed lizard, but it can help support someone's view, so you make it fit the model. Now... a whole colony of intermediate creatures would be something akin to scientific data. At least... that's how the absolute science that people seem to be saying evolution is based on works. The sad thing is... that's not what evolution is based on. It's based on assumptions that were never proven that must be disproven to be thrown out. Many call that faith.

[lambo31]

You did.  You don't know God's word.  Muslims have a book too, and so do other religions.  They all say the same thing.  'Our book/artifact is evidence of God's will'.   What is your proof for being the one religion that's right, out of all religions?  You don't have one. 
What is the proof that any of these religions have it right?  There isn't any.  It's all faith.

In you article, you say Evolutionists have beliefs about God.  They don't.  Science doesn't make any supposition whatsoever about God (*). The premise for your article is false, but let's run thru another bit of it anyway:
'Glasses': What glasses?  The only glasses 'evolutionists' look through is science. Science is logic, reason.  Religion is faith.  There's no common ground for these two optics to compare observations because one looks at the rational, empirical aspects, the other looks at the religious, supernatural aspects.  What is there to compare?   
Another thing, you say 'evolutionists' like it's some sort of breed of men.  It's not.  Evolution is a theory, an idea that's for the time being is the best fitting model to data.  There's no other reason for any special relationship between the distribution of religion and scientific ideas in this population of people (people who harbor an idea of Darwinist Evolution as the best model of natural evolution), other than maybe some mistaken understanding that the two are mutualy exclusive. 
The two ideas are independent.

I don't have the patience to read the rest of the article. The logical aberrance in your post is bad enough. You believe science backs up the bible.  You don't have proof.  There's no scientific proof of anything supernatural, can you understand that?

* It doesn't say it exists, nor does it say that it doesn't exist.  The people who Lazs says won't admit that there's something beyond science or that 'admit defeat' against religious ideas aren't representative of science. 
In the first case, refusing to admit that there's something beyond science is not a matter of science, it's a matter of faith.  That's not science talking when they say refuse to admit the possibility of something supernatural, that's faith.
Second, to admit defeat in front of religious ideas, you need a conflict.  There's no such thing between:
The systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities
and
The belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.

Systematic study, and belief and worship.  No conflict.

Ofcourse I know God's word, I study it and try to live by it. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."  The word "inspired" is literally "God-breathed." This is an interesting phrase, since it implies that the Scriptures are from the mouth of God.
 And I didn't write the article, which I state at the top of it. I even posted a link to the full article. It's a shame you couldn't finish it but I do understand. There's been many science classes I've sat threw and had to endure the evolution theory and I felt the same way.
 I disagree that there's no proof of the Supernatural, the discoveries of science shows me proof. The complexity in every thing from the cell to the human mind are my evidence. But for some one that doesn't believe in God it is imposible for them to see the proof. I've already posted this once, but here it is again, ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
 I'm ok with the fact you see things different than I do and I respect it.

 <S>

Lambo

[Torque]

thanks for proving my point about how easily the pious fraud comes apart laz... don't know what could be more arrogant and elitist then to think that your own personal god created the universe just for you.

thanks fer play'n.

[Mini D]

Wow... talk about ironic. You can't really sound much more arrogant and elitist than that torque.