Wow! Ben Stein has an awesome new movie coming out

[Rissask]

Totoally gingele.
It's the same rationale people use when they try to discredit former US presidents because they owned slaves.

Darwin actually did more for racial equality than the opposite! He established that all of mankind are one species and in this together, no race is 'above' any others.Until his book came out, and later anthropological findings, white men believed other races were 'lesser races' and treated them as such. Evolutionary biology changed all of that.



About the Young Earthers, Old Earthers, Intelligent Design'ers- same soup, different pot.

Young Earthers believe in literal creationism, a 6000 year old earth. Old Earthers believe it's older (but not the accepted 5 billion years.)

This is ID:

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.

[3][4] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6] believe the designer to be God.[7] Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory,[8] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[9]
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.

[10][11][12][13]

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[14] The National Science Teachers Association, an organization of American science teachers and the largest organization of science teachers in the world, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[15] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[16]

At least the Young Earthers can be admired for sticking to their guns.

As someone with an education degree, I find the idea that factual science would be discarded in favour of teaching something like the above, horrifying and a step backward for the entire field.

[gingele]

And then there's this bit of faulty logic (excerpted from the same blog entry):

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

While I acknopwledge that the Nazis took the theory of evolution to it's most horrific and devastating extreme, that is not a basis for questioning the scientific validity of the theory in the first instance.

Look what we did with Oppenheimer's work. Does that then mean we call into question the scientific validity of nuclear physics?

[Rissask]

Just to add, Wikipedia has a wonderful (but lengthy ) entry on Intelligent Design 'theory', HERE.

If anyone is interested in seeing the movie, I recommend you also read that page.

And kirby- it has tons of links to the references, just for you.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Just to add, Wikipedia has a wonderful (but lengthy ) entry on Intelligent Design 'theory', HERE.

If anyone is interested in seeing the movie, I recommend you also read that page.

And kirby- it has tons of links to the references, just for you.

*slams fist onto desk*

WIKIPEDIA ISNT A ....oh you already know the rest...nevermind!

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by gingele

And then there's this bit of faulty logic (excerpted from the same blog entry):

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

While I acknopwledge that the Nazis took the theory of evolution to it's most horrific and devastating extreme, that is not a basis for questioning the scientific validity of the theory in the first instance.

Look what we did with Oppenheimer's work. Does that then mean we call into question the scientific validity of nuclear physics?

It's unethical. Many people took social Darwinism to extremes, you can even see it in early anthropologist's classifications of societies: band, tribe, chiefdom, state (with the state being the pinnacle of civiliation, ect.)

It's social renderings, now recongnized by all but neo-nazis as bunk, do not diminish the science behind Origin of Species.

[Rissask]

Gingele-
One of the ways they are most successful is to make up stuff like this to twist it and try to make evolutionary theory look bad, racist, elitist, etc.

Another reason why what you posted before is so silly, is that-in terms of evolutionary biology- 'survival of the fittest' is NOT referring to an individual, but to an entire species. (This is where the term 'social darwinism' comes from- a term that was not coined by Darwin and completely twisted what survival of the fittest meant.)

In other words- it is not a phrase that means' Tommy is really smart and strong and he will get farther ahead in life than Jimmy who is a loser.'....it also does not means that any race is 'better than' another race.

'Survival of the fittest' means that if there are two different species in an area trying to survive but both cannot, the species that can adapt the best, will survive and the other will become extinct. This has actually happened with human ancestors- such as Cro Magnon and Neaderthal man (most likely anyway, they don't know that 100% for sure, they may have integrated into the Cro Magnon populations as well).

[gingele]

I know I need to read more on Mr. Stein's position, but so far all I get - from his own writings on the subject - is that he has a problem with the Imperialist era, a problem with Mr. Darwin's socio-economic status, and a problem with the extremes to which social Darwinism can be taken by sociopaths.

But I'm not seeing anything emperical yet that evidences the invalidity of the theory of evolution?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by gingele

I know I need to read more on Mr. Stein's position, but so far all I get - from his own writings on the subject - is that he has a problem with the Imperialist era, a problem with Mr. Darwin's socio-economic status, and a problem with the extremes to which social Darwinism can be taken by sociopaths.

But I'm not seeing anything emperical yet that evidences the invalidity of the theory of evolution?

The beauty of Darwin's theory, is that now "evo devo" theories step in to explain previous areas unknown with the technology of the time. It was truly ahead of its time.

As far as I can tell from the film's website, the one issue I actually agree with them on is intellectual freedom. The few examples they use of profs getting fired or denied tenure have to do with statements made outside of the classroom. I don't know enough about it and will have to check out these examples.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

*slams fist onto desk*

WIKIPEDIA ISNT A ....oh you already know the rest...nevermind!

Talk about slamming heads into brick walls.
Once again, kirby- it is completely reputable, it has links galore- to scientific books and journals and magazines, etc etc. It simply condenses and gathers the information into one entry. If you are really interested in the subject- the resources are all there- research away!

Sure, it sounds pretty biased against ID when you read it, but you know what? ANY REPUTABLE university, science organization, magazine, museum, college, biologist, anthropologist, astronmer, physicist, etc. in the world is against Intelligent Design.

Go into any university library (except those of the Oral Roberts type of course) and ask about evolution and see what books they refer to you. They won't be 'The Panda's Thumb' I guarantee you.

What does that tell you, if not that it's not true?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by playabum17

And we're off....

Finally!

[JudyBluEyes]

Originally Posted by gingele

Ineresting to read Ben's thoughts on Darwin. (excerpted from an article written by Mr. Stein on his movie site blog. Full article found here: The blog for EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed » Blog Archive » Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?

Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism. When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed–i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were. It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism “…outdoor relief for the upper classes?”)


I find it problematic that Ben calls Darwin's theories to task simply because of the age in which Darwin himself lived or the social class to which Darwin belonged. Not very emperical. And actually a bit of a slippery slope for such a well trained legal mind such as Ben's. I mean, what if we started chucking other major theories of science based upon the period in history when the original theorist happened to live? Or because of his socio-economic background?

I find it too funny that people twist the meaning of "survival of the fittest" so much that it had nothing to do with Darwin's theory - it really is a very simple concept that has nothing to do with hardiness or strength or power!!!

This is so much fun!! I love the holiday season.....

[Juanito]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Just to add, Wikipedia has a wonderful (but lengthy ) entry on Intelligent Design 'theory', HERE.

If anyone is interested in seeing the movie, I recommend you also read that page.

And kirby- it has tons of links to the references, just for you.

Try Panda's Thumb instead. There's lots of material there.

Expelled The Movie may not have disproven Darwin, but they sure have proven that Godwin was right.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by Juanito

Try Panda's Thumb instead. There's lots of material there.

Expelled The Movie may not have disproven Darwin, but they sure have proven that Godwin was right.

I mentioned The Panda's Thumb already too ...back HERE



But not exactly in a glowing way.

[UGAplaya]

Rissask has taken over the thread. Leave it up to an Athiest....

[Juanitosuarus]

Obviously, Ben Stein has never been to West Virginia.