[wes225]

does it really matter? when we die we'll find out whats real. so why worry about it now?

[Carrion]

Says who?

[TomAwesome]

Somehow I've never heard of this. You'd think something so controversial would get a lot of talk. This is a bit surprising coming from Ben Stein. I do think of him a bit differently now.

People who argue for intelligent design tend to aggravate me. It's not that they believe in it so much as how they go about trying to convince people they're right. Ben was talking about how people who try to teach intelligent design in school or talk about it within the scientific community are or at least would be met with hostility. He says basically that it's because evolutionists are afraid of scrutiny and afraid of being proven wrong. That's not it at all. Creationism isn't science. It's a belief system. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a similar amount of right to be in our schools and sciences. If there was proof that an omnipotent God created all life in its more or less present form, I'd be more open to the idea, but I have never been presented with any shred of such evidence. That leads me to my next point.

For proof, creationists just point out how complex life is. Yes, living organisms are impressively complex, and the whole intelligence thing really is amazing, but the mere fact that life is complex does not in any way prove intelligent design. The way Ben was talking about that "lightning striking mud" thing irked me. What he was doing there was something I've seen religious types do quite a bit. He was oversimplifying the scientific theories of the possible origins of life on Earth to a degree that made it sound silly, thereby making the theory he's pushing seem more logical by comparison. I think there's a term for that, but I forget what it is.

Then when you call them out on the fact that they have no actual proof or evidence to back intelligent design, they point out that despite having some theories, current modern science doesn't actually know how life started. This one especially irks me. No, evolutionists don't know how life started. I'll admit that for all I know, God really may have made all life on Earth as written in the Bible. The fact is, though, that nobody can say he or she knows how it happened unless that person was actually there when it happened. I don't know how life came to be on this planet, but I'll choose to believe what the evidence supports rather than just believing what I want to be true. I can believe that the Ibanez LACS will make me custom 8-strings for free all I want, but that doesn't make it true. If God opens up the clouds one day and says, "Hey guys, it was me!" then all right. At least thus far, though, I don't think there is any real evidence that that's how it happened.

After all that I feel I should clarify that I'm not trying to bash on all creationists here. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever he or she wants. I'm just bitching about the general lack of real thought present when I see people trying to argue against an established and, more importantly, evidenced set of theories in these kinds of ways.

[Codyyy]

Originally Posted by TomAwesome

The way Ben was talking about that "lightning striking mud" thing irked me. What he was doing there was something I've seen religious types do quite a bit. He was oversimplifying the scientific theories of the possible origins of life on Earth to a degree that made it sound silly, thereby making the theory he's pushing seem more logical by comparison. I think there's a term for that, but I forget what it is.

That rubbed me the wrong way too. He was speaking of it in such an oversimplified, subtly condescending way.

Intentionally misleading

[Metal Ken]

I watched the Ben Stein interview with Glenn Beck.

It amazes me, they're saying how universities and the like "Pushing their views on everyone." No one is pushing views on me at my university. There's plenty of people on both sides of the fence, both in the student body and the faculty. And as far as science, why are these neocons going out of their way to try to disprove shit they dont know anything about? Hell yes i'm gonna trust a person with a PhD in at my, or any other major university over some talking heads or film actors, on everything but being an ass or acting.

"Armed against your professors"? Why should you be? why are you even going to learn if you're going to try to refute everything. This is fucking rediculous.

[kristallin]

Expelled Exposed

This site debunks large portions of the movie. All I can say is I'd have thought better from Ben Stein.

[Vegetta]

Originally Posted by eaeolian

No, sadly, Ben Stein actually believes this shit. There are a lot of scientists that were interviewed under false pretenses and then had their interviews "cut up" to make it appear that the makers of this little piece of propaganda had a leg to stand on - which, in reality, they don't.

THey must have went to the Michael Moore school of film creation :lol

[Naren]

Originally Posted by wes225

does it really matter? when we die we'll find out whats real. so why worry about it now?

What if you don't find out ANYTHING when you die? What if you just go to sleep and never wake up? Like shutting off a computer and never turning it back on. What if the idea of a soul and a spirit is just an idea people long ago created to represent the part of their mind that controlled their feelings and expressed an interest in religion?

If there is no afterlife (which none of us can know for sure), then we won't find out anything at all when we die.

Originally Posted by TomAwesome

For proof, creationists just point out how complex life is. Yes, living organisms are impressively complex, and the whole intelligence thing really is amazing, but the mere fact that life is complex does not in any way prove intelligent design. The way Ben was talking about that "lightning striking mud" thing irked me. What he was doing there was something I've seen religious types do quite a bit. He was oversimplifying the scientific theories of the possible origins of life on Earth to a degree that made it sound silly, thereby making the theory he's pushing seem more logical by comparison. I think there's a term for that, but I forget what it is.

This reason oftentimes seems a cop-out to me. And it's the same reason people have been giving for thousands of years for God. "Well, we can't think of another reason, so the easiest answer would be God."

Now I'm not saying there isn't a God, because there is always that possibility, but I have never seen any evidence to support it. I'm more an agnostic than an atheist, but I tend to lean further to the "no God" side.

Choosing intelligent design shows the tendency of humans to always choose answers based on their limited personal experience. "Hey, this tree looks complex... almost like a person made it. It must have been made by God." I know why God comes out in the conversation, but I don't think it's very logical. It's almost a kind of circular logic.

[TomAwesome]

Originally Posted by Naren

This reason oftentimes seems a cop-out to me. And it's the same reason people have been giving for thousands of years for God. "Well, we can't think of another reason, so the easiest answer would be God."

Now I'm not saying there isn't a God, because there is always that possibility, but I have never seen any evidence to support it.

Choosing intelligent design shows the tendency of humans to always choose answers based on their limited personal experience. "Hey, this tree looks complex... almost like a person made it. It must have been made by God." I know why God comes out in the conversation, but I don't think it's very logical. It's almost a kind of circular logic.

Exactly. Agreed on all points. The further back you go into human history, the more often you see religious/magical explanations for things that seem simple to us now but that back then were difficult for people to figure out. It's in our nature to want to have explanations for how things work and how things are, but it makes more sense to try to figure it out rather than making something up or just attributing it to something else with no real logical reason to do so.

[Trespass]

Fuck, can't you guys realize the reason us ID/Creationists try to convince you guys is not for some crazy self-serving scheme, were doing everything we can to help you guys reach a paradise we believe in. We are moved by compassion!

Forget the method, (their are too many of us, and were all lumped in the same group for me to argue whose method is in the right, whose in the wrong) but damnit were trying.

For us, its the same as someone dying in the desert, and we know the location of the oasis that would save your life, and only ask that you trust us to help guide you there. We're not carrying you, you have to get to the water yourself. We do these things because we try to love one another, for peace and prosperity, and freedom of speech.

I have many problems myself with the various denominations within Christianity, not because their message is bad, but because each denomination has a different method of getting people to the end result. I feel nearly all methods these days are just terrible and contradict the point of freedom of choice on a religious level, and usually just put people against religion itself (Muslim extremists/Crusades/Spanish Inquisition etc.).

I'm open to any religious talk, and will happily listen to anything you have to refute of what I say now or in the future in regards to religion. If anything needs to be discussed on PM, or MSN, I'm happy as well.

Thanks,
Kris