The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Expelled - Ben Stein has the crazies?

2456734

Posts

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Darwin does not equal the theory of evolution.

    You might as well credit Newton with inventing the rocket. Sure the concepts he devolved were instrumental but he sure as hell didn't anticipate it.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    My point was that nobody is a "Darwinist" because nobody follows Darwin or his principles by choice. Our lives go according to those principles regardless of whether or not we think he's lying. Either nobody's a Darwinist, or everybody is.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    My point was that nobody is a "Darwinist" because nobody follows Darwin or his principles by choice. Our lives go according to those principles regardless of whether or not we think he's lying. Either nobody's a Darwinist, or everybody is.

    /blink

    I dunno, I don't really understand what you just said. I consider myself a "Darwinistically cynical determinist". It's a little like Freudian cynicism, but Darwin was a lot more on the money than Freud, so thbbbt. Given that outlook, yeah, it's not like I "chose" that position, but he certainly had a strong hand in conceptualizing it, so I give credit where it's due. Other people have a different interpretation of how things work, so I understand if they don't consider themselves "Darwinian". I understand that's how labels work. You either are or you aren't. Whether you're wrong is a separate issue.

    That said, I guess that's not exactly the same thing as The Theory of Evolution...

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    What's wrong with the term "Darwinian"?

    Because describing somebody that understands that evolution is a fact as a "Darwinist" or "Darwinian" is like, to bring up that classic example, somebody that understands that gravity is a fact a "Newtonian."

    I mean, Newtonian physics and Darwinian evolution are real things, but one doesn't follow natural laws by choice.
    Because one of the tactics used by the makers of this film is to try and inexorably link the science of evolution, which has progressed enormously in the last century+, with a single historical figure. This allows them to attack that figure instead of the science (which they can't).

    Oh.

    But, the use of the term is largely accurate, isn't it? I mean, he wasn't completely correct in everything and he didn't have everything nailed down, but "evolution by natural selection" is pretty much how that shit works according to any reasonable appraisal, and he pretty much came up with it first, so, okay.

    And it's not like Darwin is hard to defend or anything. As far as I can tell, he was pretty much a prince of a dude.

    It's more of a difference in world view. A difference between believing in a given person (or diety) and therefore in what they said vs. believing in what they said on its merits alone. Eg: Darwinist (revering the man) vs. evolution (studying the idea)

    RiemannLives on
    Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    Well then, I guess that's the distinction. You're talking about a philosophical implication of Darwin's concepts (I think), whereas I'm just talking about the veracity of his claims. With regards to evolution, to be clear, nobody is a Darwinist or Evolutionist. It just happens, regardless of understanding.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    It's more of a difference in world view. A difference between believing in a given person (or diety) and therefore in what they said vs. believing in what they said on its merits alone. Eg: Darwinist (revering the man) vs. evolution (studying the idea)

    I understand that. I guess I just see it as giving credit where it's due and don't see a problem with it. I see both as being correct, albeit with different emphases and slightly divergent connotations.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • AWinnerIsYouAWinnerIsYou Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Tell me if I'm wrong... but "intelligent design" isn't any different than creationism, right? Wasn't intelligent design just invented as a legal maneuvering to teach creationism in schools - they replaced "God" with "Intelligent Designer" and ran with it, right? Or am I way off base?

    AWinnerIsYou on
    "It's like a pterodactyl from a gay Jurassic Park."
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    You're pretty much right.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Puck, don't make me stab you. You should know better than to use a term like "Darwinian," or are we going to have to resort to a Milgram-esque treatment?

    I seriously thought about using a more nuanced term but decided to just throw up Darwinian because it seemed pretty easy shorthand.

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    I think "normal people" is sufficiently nuanced and suggestive, suitably filled with derisive implications.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Tell me if I'm wrong... but "intelligent design" isn't any different than creationism, right? Wasn't intelligent design just invented as a legal maneuvering to teach creationism in schools - they replaced "God" with "Intelligent Designer" and ran with it, right? Or am I way off base?

    No, that's pretty much it.

    There's a great damning example of a Creationist textbook (Of Pandas and People, I think) that got edited into an Intelligent design textbook, where they basically did a find-and-replace with the two terms.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    There a bit of irony there as well. I think this movie will be seen by more Darwinians than Creationists.

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    I think it is ironic that the producers of Expelled are expelling people from their movie.
    I think it would be ironic if a movie advocating creationism ended up making the majority of the money that it ends up making from people who believe that there is no creator and that life developed on this planet according to a set of scientific notions that we lump under the rubric Evolution.

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I'm kind of curious if the producers of this film actually believe that there's a vast conspiracy, if they think a lie about a conspiracy will help them spread the truth of intelligent design, or if they don't personally believe any of it.

    Cervetus on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Michael Behe's last book seemed pretty much a last gasp of ID. From what I understand, it seems to imply that if he had maybe thought about it for just five more minutes, he would have renounced/denounced everything and been a good, upstanding supporter of reason.

    It's just that weak.

    Maybe the second or third edition will have an epilogue or something, but I suspect it's just so much more profitable to be an intellectually dishonest contrarian.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    I wouldn't call it intellectually dishonest to say that. Darwin's Little Black Box was the absolute epitome of God-of-the-gaps. That five minutes of thought is about four minutes longer than it takes to realize why God-of-the-gaps is wrong.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I suspect it's just so much more profitable to be an intellectually dishonest contrarian.

    Makes sense to me. There's a huge number of people who don't believe in evolution and very few experts to serve that demographic*. Then again, does that particular demographic buy books about things like "intelligent design"?

    *don't someone come in here and get all in my face about using the word demographic as a noun. I'm lazy.

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Demographic isn't a noun?

    Apothe0sis on
  • edited March 2008
    This content has been removed.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Michael Behe's last book seemed pretty much a last gasp of ID. From what I understand, it seems to imply that if he had maybe thought about it for just five more minutes, he would have renounced/denounced everything and been a good, upstanding supporter of reason.

    It's just that weak.

    Maybe the second or third edition will have an epilogue or something, but I suspect it's just so much more profitable to be an intellectually dishonest contrarian.

    Yeah, the second travesty of a book, "Edge of Evolution" is really bad as well. He tries to make all kinds of stupid arguments, including claiming that HIV has not evolved any new proteins (when it has in fact done so, as VPU demonstrates). His mangling of the literature surrounding the development of resistance to chloroquinolones is just plain dishonest (effectively quote mining a paper) and intellectually lazy. They then have the nerve to whine they get no credibility from anyone with half a brain in biology. Maybe if they weren't a bunch of dishonest twats and instead of trying to make stupid "academic freedom" bills and force ID textbooks into classrooms had put that effort into doing science would have got somewhere.

    Yeah, that's the book I was referring to.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Thor1590Thor1590 Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    That conservopedia thing is about the most disturbing thing I've been introduced to in weeks. Well, after Expelled!

    Also, as it may or may not be pertinent to the discussion, and I don't know anything about the subject, what has Ben Stein done other than this to curb your appreciation of him? Is it all along the same lines? i. e. Creationist support, or is it another subject intirely?

    Thor1590 on
  • edited March 2008
    This content has been removed.

  • RaneadosRaneados police apologist you shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    shit here I was think that everyone that did a guest voice on The Fairly OddParents was cool

    ruined worldview

    Raneados on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Mathis said the reason that Darwinists oppose intelligent design is that this will mean they have to share grant money with intelligent design and cut into their booksales.

    Share their grant money?

    I dare Mathis to give me an application for intelligent design "theory" that would be deserving of a university grant.

    I don't know, "proving God"? I'm sure that has plenty of applications in supporting the campaigns of GOP candidates and bolstering church enrollment.

    Well, no. See, since Intelligent Design says that a creator brought about life, so for ID to be a valid theory, the existence of the creator must be proven beyond reasonable doubt already.

    So you can't even claim that.

    DarkPrimus on
  • edited March 2008
    This content has been removed.

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Basically everything about this movie repulses me. From the claims about oppression from "big science", to the dishonest tactics they used to get their interviews, and their attempts to associate evolution with the Nazis.

    The people who made this piece of garbage should be ashamed of themselves.

    Marathon on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Really, that the ID proponents resort to the same tactics they accuse the scientific community of doing is all you need to know to come to the conclusion that whatever they are selling is a load of horse shit.

    I miss the "new creationism" wave that came at the turn of the new millennium on the waves of Dembski and Behe. At least they attempted to be scientific about it, and you actually had to read their book and fact-check carefully to discover where they were being dishonest, whether intentionally or not. These folks now aren't even trying.

    DarkPrimus on
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Love the links guys!

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I was going to come in here and say something about all of this but basically Aegeri has said it 1000x better than I could do. <3 Aegeri!


    edit: Oh, and also, I have met PZ Myers in person and he is basically a friendly, very soft-spoken man in a tweed jacket. Anyone who expects him to make some kind of huge disruption at a movie is basically a colossal doofus.

    DiscGrace on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I miss the "new creationism" wave that came at the turn of the new millennium on the waves of Dembski and Behe. At least they attempted to be scientific about it, and you actually had to read their book and fact-check carefully to discover where they were being dishonest, whether intentionally or not. These folks now aren't even trying.

    And, at least in Behe's case, they actually forced some pretty useful advances in real scientific fields. Since their argument was, essentially, that anything that we didn't have solid answer for was proof that there was a creator, real scientists just came behind him and did some hardcore research, plugging those holes.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Indeed, I own a book that has essays devoted specifically to debunking Behe and Dembski's claims, and it's full of wonderful information about how irreducible complex systems form and how natural selection really works.

    DarkPrimus on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Demographic isn't a noun?

    Demographic is a noun. This thread is CRAZY!

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    If there was a way to stab Ben Stein in the face and set fire to this movie, I totally would.

    For now I will sit and grumble about how terribly stupid human beings can be.

    Shurakai on
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Indeed, I own a book that has essays devoted specifically to debunking Behe and Dembski's claims, and it's full of wonderful information about how irreducible complex systems form and how natural selection really works.

    Out of curiosity, what book? That's a subject I would like to know more about; I know evolution's basic concepts and accept its science, but I sometimes feel guilty I'm not as informed on the subject.

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • edited March 2008
    This content has been removed.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    talkorigins.org and talkdesign.org have pretty much all you need, I think.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Well Aegeri based on the logic you just presented the only way to resolve the issue is a supernatural designer that cannot be quantified or explained(i.e GOD). That's why ID is a Creationist Trojan horse. It doesn't postulate God to start with but if you follow it's logic the only conclusion is God in some form.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Aliens!

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Yeah, Directed Panspermia. It's actually a very nice way of hijacking creationist ID conversations, making them regret they ever started one. The poison pill.

    Octoparrot on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Indeed, I own a book that has essays devoted specifically to debunking Behe and Dembski's claims, and it's full of wonderful information about how irreducible complex systems form and how natural selection really works.

    Out of curiosity, what book? That's a subject I would like to know more about; I know evolution's basic concepts and accept its science, but I sometimes feel guilty I'm not as informed on the subject.

    Why Intelligent Design Fails.

    If you are really interested in reading about detailed dissections of irreducible complexity and similar things, the book is worth every penny. Wonderfully written essays with lots of awesome diagrams. And it looks like Rutgers University Press is having a sale right now so it's only $20, which is half what I paid for it.

    DarkPrimus on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Ludious wrote: »
    As a Christian who pretty much avoids the origin debate entirely, what difference does it really make?

    Intelligent Design or Evolution,

    If Evolution is true, does that automatically mean there isn't a God? I don't see why I wouldn't be allowed to believe in Evolution governed by a higher power.

    I don't know what I believe, because it's a non issue to me. But I'm just sayin.

    Some people just don't want to believe the story of Adam and Eve is false, I guess because that calls original sin into question and, through that, the need to be forgiven.

    Also, some people just don't want to believe they came from apes (though, obviously, our predecessors wouldn't be apes).

    Robos A Go Go on
This discussion has been closed.