Ben Stein Convinced of Scientific Hostility toward Intelligent Design
You’ve got to watch this 5 minute teaser video from the upcoming soon-to-be-latest-controversial film: Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed!
And check out Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Ben Stein about this documentary:
March 6, 2008 at 4:15 pm
“You’ve got to watch this 5 minute teaser video from the upcoming soon-to-be-latest-controversial film: Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed!”
Why? What about it do you find particularly accurate or compelling?
March 6, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Hello “The Bad Idea blog”,
The reasons I found this interesting are…
1) Its Ben Stein and he is weird/cool,
2) Ben Stein is doing a documentary,
3) The documentary is about Creation vs. Evolution,
and finally….
4) Stein is actually in defense of intelligent design. Or at least giving intelligent design more equality with the THEORY of evolution. He is arguing that too long now the Darwinists and evolutionists have persecuted the believers in intelligent design (primarily Christians but also many secular scientists who hold to intelligent design) in an unequal and unconstitutional way. So I got excited about that. More people need to speak out about the oppression that goes on and the inconsistencies in the education system, government, and science movement!
And because I love Jesus, believe He is God, believe He is our only hope to be rescued from God’s Holy Wrath due only to our utter sinfulness, then I love that anyone is heralding truth and getting upset about deception!
Hope you’ll go see it because I think it’ll be good.
Thanks for asking,
jonathan
March 6, 2008 at 8:26 pm
That’s wonderful that you love Jesus, but what does that have to do with biology?
Why did you capitalize the word theory? Do you know what a scientific theory is? I suggest you look it up. Hint: intelligent design magic is not a scientific theory. Intelligent design creationism is not science at all.
By the way nobody except everything-is-magic creationists use words like darwinists and evolutionists. They are called scientists, not evolutionists or darwinists.
March 6, 2008 at 9:45 pm
My response here
March 7, 2008 at 2:34 pm
To “Bad”, I just finished responding to your response of my response to your blog. Whoa! Hope that made sense.
To “bobx2×2″, Thanks for responding.
“That’s wonderful that you love Jesus, but what does that have to do with biology?”
-I don’t know whether to say thank you or if you are being sarcastic. But I’ll answer simply: It has EVERYTHING to do with Jesus. If you truly love the Jesus of the Bible, whom I believe is THE Jesus (God’s Son, God Himself as man), than you must necessarily believe that He is King over all things, including life and therefore the study or science of life. So, biology then is the study of life as Jesus created it to be. I believe Jesus is Sovereign over every aspect of life and existence: from microscopic organisms and the motors on each one of our human hairs, to gigantic creatures and beasts and the oceans and mountains and moon and every single one of the trillions of stars and galaxies. Jesus is King of it all. So anything I see in biology, points me right back to Jesus Christ, because He owns it all and put it all here.
“Why did you capitalize the word theory? Do you know what a scientific theory is? I suggest you look it up. Hint: intelligent design magic is not a scientific theory. Intelligent design creationism is not science at all.”
-I capitalized the word “THEORY” because I strongly believe that that’s what it is: a theory. My reasoning is because I am comparing the word THEORY to FACT, as it is taught in every major school, college, and learning center in the world (which by the way never proves that it is therefore true; since when did popularity or wide-spread acceptance of anything necessitate its validity? Popular doesn’t = True; if it did, this world woud be more chaotic than it is now). I think this site defines it pretty good:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=2DM&pwst=1&defl=en&q=define:Scientific+theory&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
-”Intelligent design magic”? No one said it was “magic”. I don’t understand you here. And I partially agree with you that “intelligent design creationism is not science at all”.
AGREE: because its not primarily science but rather FAITH, which is the evidence of things unseen, of things hoped for:
Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”
So it is a matter of faith in the unseen things. And by this faith we understand that the universe was made by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of what is visible by our eyes.
DISAGREE: because Evolution (specifically Macro Evolution is what I’m referring to; which is what scientists and textbooks typically mean when they say “Evolution”, which is misleading) is also muchly based on faith in things that have not and cannot be proven. For example:
The Geologic Column - explain where this actually exists in nature. And explain how the logic of this column actually makes sense: The way the layers of soil are dated is by the fossils found in them. The way the fossils are dated is by the soil they are found in. Huh? Isn’t that a self-destructive double negative? How can that be possible?
Example Conversation:
Scientist: Hey look at this fossil of a trilobite I just found.
Student: Wow professor, that is amazing! How old do you think it is?
Scientist: Well, let’s look at the fossil record and geological column to see its date.
Student: How will they show you how old the fossil is?
Scientist: By telling how old the soil I found it in is.
Student: But how do you know how old the soil is in the first place?
Scientist: By the fossils found in it……er….uh…..lets finish this discussion later. I’ve got some thinking to do.
You see the illogical basis of this line of reasoning? You see how much blind faith goes in to believing this Geologic column without any physical proof or evidence of its existence or scientific validity?
I also disagree with you about how Intelligent Design is not science at all because to believe in it all one has to do is look around the earth and the universe. Just the amazing intricacies, complexities, order, and genius that saturates things like the human eye, DNA, genetic codes, solar blasts, supernovas, birth, the human body period, plant life, animal life and behavior, etc. etc. etc. They all are physical and actual proof that there was an original design and order to all of this. So when you look around at these things, the reason you see similarities and commonalities (like apes and humans) is not because they all evolved from the same rock, but because the SAME ONE Creator created them all.
“By the way nobody except everything-is-magic creationists use words like darwinists and evolutionists. They are called scientists, not evolutionists or darwinists.”
- Okay well thanks for labeling me and calling me names already when I don’t even know you. I never have said nor will I ever say “everything is magic”. Magic is something mystical and mysterious, often evil if you ask me. On the other hand I believe “everything is created” by God.
And the reason I use the word “darwinists” is because the whole evolutionary theory stemmed from Charles Darwin’s book: Origin of the Species. He is the one that authenticated and organized this whole theoretical philosophy and thought of where the species came from through his research on finches in the Galapogos Islands. So I’m not trying to throw out labels. Just be accurate. If that’s wrong, then I’ll stop. I have a hard time calling some of these people who attest to evolutionary theory as science, scientists. Because I believe there is so much about evolutionary theory that is based on speculation, lack of evidence, worldly propaganda, deception, and hypothetical theories. Maybe that’s why I prefer “evolutionists and darwinists”. NOt trying to be rude or mean.
I love scientists and people who believe in this evolutionary theory, but I hate what they believe in. And to me, that’s what it is: A belief system, not a scientific proof.
Thanks for commenting on here, love to keep this going.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
March 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Jonathan, how old is the earth? I need to know your understanding of this before I can engage you any further on the topic.
Thanks,
Dave
March 7, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Dave,
I’m guessing that if we are both honest, we’ll say: “I don’t know”! Honestly and simply, that is my answer.
My more detailed response would be: I don’t feel there is sufficient or efficient evidence that supports the old earth theory, namely that the earth is roughly 4.6 Billion Years old. Like I told “Bad”, I don’t know as much about this topic as you guys probably do. But from what I’ve studied combined with what I believe is the truth, I would say that I lean more toward a young earth theory, namely that the earth is less than 10,000 years old or so! I heard an argument using mostly the Bible and some logic that traced back the lineage of Adam’s genealogy (Adam and Eve) and came up with a rough estimated figure of about 6-8,000 years old.
Personally, I don’t care how old the earth is nor do I think it is relevant to matters of life and death and the afterlife and religion.
Hope my answer was short and clear. Thanks for inquiring and desiring to engage in some conversing. Look forward to it Dave.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
March 7, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Dave,
by the way, just out of curiosity:
Is this Dave the David T Jordan that commented here?
http://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/ben-stein-a-coward-free-speech-faker-cant-face-creationisms-critics/#comment-2049
March 7, 2008 at 3:47 pm
How do you reconcile your belief that the Earth is young with that of most other Christians who accept the scientific estimation of 4+ billion years? - who don’t feel constrained by the Biblical account? Which of you is incorrect?
Dave
March 7, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Dave,
I don’t reconcile it. I don’t know any Christians personally who do. And to say “most” seems to be a huge misrepresentation and exaggeration. Most of the Christians I know embrace a young earth theory and reject that the earth or the universe is billions of years old. In fact, many of the Christians I know believe that dinosaurs lived with man. That God created the dinosaurs (or lizards) with man in the Garden of Eden. That Adam and Eve were living with dinosaurs. Pretty crazy huh? Not to me. I don’t feel constrained by the biblical account at all. It’s not binding my thoughts, but actually guides and enlightens them. I get all that I know about life, origins of life, purpose of life, morals, ethics, etc. from God’s Word: the Bible. As far as who is incorrect? Obviously I am going to try and humbly say that I believe that I am. But I am not too prideful to be open to conversations and dialogue about these things.
What evidence have you found that supports an old earth theory being close to 4 billion years old? And why do you think these “most other Christians” accept this number too?
Please shed some light. Thanks again for responding and doing so very quickly.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
March 7, 2008 at 8:24 pm
My “most other Christians” estimate comes from the fact that in my interactions, very, very few Christians - and no non-Christians - promote a young Earth story. Plus it goes against all known, verifiable data. So this is my personal experience. What evidence to you have that most Christians do? I suspect it’s because you have not interacted with many folks with opposing views of your own.
The dinos lived with man assertion has no basis in fact. None. To accept that this could not have occured would require you to understand the geologic column, which you have already demonstrated you do not understand. So, I’m not surprised you have made this assertion. To accept that all things were created only thousands of years ago requires one to discount what is known about the vastness of the universe, the known speed of light, and other natural constants. You don’t feel constrained by the Biblical account at all, yet you are. You are denying reality. To retort that your God made things “look” old suggests a deceitful diety.
Does the Earth revolve around the Sun or vice versa? Is the Earth a sphere or flat? Before you answer, consult what the Bible says regarding the story of the Sun being stopped in the sky and the “circle” of the world. You cannot have it both ways.
I am not the other Dave.
Dave
March 8, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Dave,
Guess you seem to already have me pegged, huh?
“My “most other Christians” estimate comes from the fact that in my interactions, very, very few Christians - and no non-Christians - promote a young Earth story. Plus it goes against all known, verifiable data. So this is my personal experience. What evidence to you have that most Christians do? I suspect it’s because you have not interacted with many folks with opposing views of your own.”
- I’m not quite sure why at this point you are already seemingly stereotyping me into some sort of category. How can you suspect anything about me right now? The majority of my life is spent around non-Christians. Most of my Christian friends hold to a young earth theory. But like I said before, the age of the earth has little bearing on what really matters: the fact that God is real and demands we worship Him. My evidence that most Christians do is the same as your evidence that most Christians don’t: personal interaction. It’s safe for both of us right now to not “suspect” or assume anything. That’s how truth gets blurred and bias comes in.
“The dinos lived with man assertion has no basis in fact. None. To accept that this could not have occured would require you to understand the geologic column, which you have already demonstrated you do not understand. So, I’m not surprised you have made this assertion.”
-I couldn’t disagree more. Why? Because I have spent my life researching it out? No. Because I can’t make a sweeping absolute statement like you can to say, “the dinos lived with man assertion has NO basis in fact”. Dave, to even make that statement you’d have to have all knowledge. That’s like saying, there is nowhere in the world where a white moth will rest on a black rock, nowhere. How can anyone possibly know that? Likewise, how can anyone possibly know, without doubt and will ALL absolute proof otherwise that dinosaurs could have never lived with man, ever? It’s impossible! Just like the fact that there are possibly hundreds, if not more, species of animals that we haven’t even discovered yet and may never discover. Down in the depths of the oceans, or the deep deep jungle, or in sub-arctic temperatures, etc.
Explain the logic of the geologic column, please. How can the fossils be dated by the soils they are found in, and the soils be dated by the fossils found in them? Please, explain how that makes sense. If I apparently don’t understand it, then show me.
“To accept that all things were created only thousands of years ago requires one to discount what is known about the vastness of the universe, the known speed of light, and other natural constants. You don’t feel constrained by the Biblical account at all, yet you are. You are denying reality. To retort that your God made things “look” old suggests a deceitful diety.”
-I’m not sure if you’re trying to attack what I believe or belittle me. I hope not. But either way, to say that God made something appear a certain way that is not does not suggest deceitfulness, but rather Sovereignty and mystery. Does He HAVE to reveal the truth to us? I mean, the idea of God is a Supreme and Mighty Being. Who are we to lay claims on Him and say He owes us anything? He doesn’t owe us anything, much less revelation of Himself or His creation.
What does the vastness of the universe have to do with its age? God can’t make an boundaryless universe in any amount of time He wants to? I am not bound solely to the Biblical account as in I can’t see any other truth from Creation. But I am willingly bound to it in the sense that I get truth from it, and that anything in creation can’t and won’t counteract what God says in His Word.
As far as the sun and earth centrality theory, I just don’t know about that one. I think it is a very interesting one. Especially what Ptolemy says: that the Earth is the center of this universe and the Sun is what moves. Scripture does seem to support that at times, doesn’t it?
Jonathan