Ben Stein Takes on Dawkins

26 Feb

For those of you following the intelligent design/new atheist debates and rhetoric..you will like this Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed it is a Ben Stein movie taking on the neo-Darwinist and neo-atheist. The cool thing about it is 1. Stein is Jewish not a Christian, which frankly lends credibility to the concept that this is not a insider argument and 2. Stein is taking it to pop culture which again is the way to go when waging a battle (thus this blog). Watch the trailer, it is great!

Advertisements

13 Responses to “Ben Stein Takes on Dawkins”

  1. aboulet February 26, 2008 at 1:08 pm #

    That looks brilliant.

  2. scripto February 26, 2008 at 3:20 pm #

    Looks can be deceiving. If you can’t make it in the marketplace of ideas you might as well make a movie.

  3. poopemerges February 26, 2008 at 5:33 pm #

    Ummm…I think a movie is the marketplace of ideas…and the point here really is from the neo-Darwinist: if you can’t make it in the market place of ideas suppress all other views.

    D

  4. scripto February 26, 2008 at 7:58 pm #

    Ummm….you have a point. But you would think you would actually try to do some science before claiming that you are being prevented from doing science. It’s not like these ID guys have fistfuls of rejection slips from the relevant journals. You can’t suppress what isn’t there. The Discovery Institue uses the same public relations techniques as Holocaust deniers and anti-vaxers. A lot of yelling and very little work. There is probably more corroborating evidence for phrenology than there is for Intelligent Design. Science is a process, not a religion and these guys want a seat at the table without doing the necessary work. It’s dishonest.

    By the way, you’re dating yourself with the Darwinist (neo or otherwise) label. Try substituting the term “biologist”.

  5. mikevandrie February 28, 2008 at 12:11 am #

    scripto- first substituting the term “biologist” for “Darwinist” would not be correct. There can be ID Biologist and Darwinist or evolutionary biologist.

    Also I have many friends who are Christian Biologist and do have fistfuls of rejections from the science journals.

    Thirdly if someone believes in Darwinism or evolution they do believe something and have faith. The evidence for macro evolution is weak and takes a lot of faith to believe in.

  6. scripto February 28, 2008 at 10:30 am #

    Darwin had some great insights but he also made a lot of mistakes. I doubt if any evolutionary biologist considers themselves a strict Darwinist. Biology has changed a lot in the last 150 years.

    I don’t know what you mean by a Christian biologist. There are biologists who are Christian just like there are biologists who are Jews or Hindus or Atheists. The idea is that the method is the same no matter what your cultural bias. That’s why it works universally and why it is especially important to have your ideas peer reviewed. I suggest Millers “Finding Darwin’s God” and Collins’ “The Language of God”. These are two believers who are also respected scientists.

    I’d be curious to see what research your biologist friends had that was rejected by the appropriate journals.

    Evolutionary biology is subject to change, just like any other branch of science. That alone separates it from religion. It is no more a matter of faith than gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease.

    Macro evolution is micro evolution over time. The evidence is written in stone. I know of no other coherent explanation for the distribution of the fossil record other than common ancestry and descent with modification.

  7. Samuel Skinner February 29, 2008 at 12:15 am #

    Macro evolution is cumulative micro.

  8. Jim February 29, 2008 at 3:32 am #

    It’s hard to believe someone so well educated as Ben Stein could be so myopic. I guess as a lawyer he is more convinced by rhetoric and argument than cold hard evidence. Any student of history could plainly see parallels to this debate in the trial of Galileo. The non-scientist feels threatened by convincing new evidence that contradicts his cherished religious beliefs and acts accordingly.

    For those of you who are creationists and eagerly anticipating this movie, please be advised that all of the actual scientists in this movie were tricked into thinking this was an objective documentary, and their statements were then edited for effect. Search google or see wikipedia for sources. Not to mention, please take at least Biology 101 before you try (in inevitable futility) to argue for unprovable supernatural intervention in the creation of life. Who knows? You might actually learn something.

  9. poopemerges February 29, 2008 at 3:56 am #

    I will respond in full latter but just a few points now:

    1. My wife and Father-in-Law are scientists by education…and Christians, so I am pretty sure they required that Biology 101 for the Biology degree.

    2. There is lots of fossil evidence for Micro Evolution, I have not seen any warrant for Macro

    3. Scripto-When you rule out God as a possibility you cease to be an objective scientist, because if the evidence did lead to God you have a priori decided you will not follow it

    4. Darn you Darwin guys get whiney when some one says something about your Darwinism…you would think it was your god or something.

    5. I am a supernaturalist Jim, science can’t threaten my view…it doesn’t really matter, I am going to believe in God because frankly the effect of having him in my life is the evidence that I need. The only ones having their faith threatened in this debate are the Darwinist. My world view is unchanged whether you come up with Scientific evidence for Evolution, ID, Creation or any other theory. Yours on the other hand because it is based in Science is damaged if the evidence points to a creator…I think this is why some of you protest so much, it is your worldview not ours that is in danger.

    D

  10. Samuel Skinner February 29, 2008 at 7:32 pm #

    Once again macro is cumulative micro- no one has ever seen cliffs reduced to sand by waves, yet we theorize that is how sand is made because we can see the process happening.

    Nope. God doesn’t exist. We haven’t ruled him out- the evidance did. If you are unfamiliar with why science discards old theores or why supernaturalism is concidered bunk you should read up on it.

    We aren’t Darwin guys- we are Wallace guys. Aren’t you familiar with it being Darwin and Wallace’s theory? We refer to it as Darwin’s theory because Wallace was like… Sam Harris. Not about atheism but about mysticism.

    I see. So reality doesn’t count? What a wonderful lesson to teach your kids- “remember the real world doesn’t matter. So you don’t have to worry about secular things like reason, science and morality”. “Darwinists” don’t have faith- we use evidence. We can see that by the fact that one side has declared that reality is unimportant to them. Guess who that is? As for being a supernaturalist… basically that means believing in the supernatural… which is… uh… since everything that occurs in the universe is considered natural… er… I have no bloody clue. I think it is just an excuse to believe in nonsense. Can someone please explain it in a noncontradictory manner?

  11. poopemerges February 29, 2008 at 10:27 pm #

    Oh no reality matters greatly, I think that scientifically the universe screams that there is a creator…I am just saying that your version of science is not the only form of evidence…and that Theologically speaking the Bible could be compatible with several views. So if one of your theories could be proved it would not destroy my world view, because frankly you would still need to answer how we got here…I mean lets say it is pure godless evolution, I would then ask ok but where did the building blocks come from? At some point something is eternal, either God or some form of matter. Whatever that eternal thing is, is god. I say that the eternal thing is a loving and supernatural God who designed and created the universe, I say this because first, I know this God, and secondly science supports it. You say that the universe is god because you have a priori rejected the concept of a designer (don’t give me bs about science proving it, you are not that dumb clearly and you know that this statement in no way can be proved) and because science supports it. The only difference in our world views my friend is that my God is loving and gives me purpose, while yours is inanimate and gives you only breath. Either way we are both operating on faith, and while science is a significant form of evidence, it is not the only one.

  12. poopemerges February 29, 2008 at 10:34 pm #

    Also you did not deal with point 4.

  13. mikevandrie February 29, 2008 at 11:43 pm #

    Scripto and Samuel you guys say macro evolution is accumulative micro evolution. There is evidence for micro evolution however there is not fossil evidence for macro evolution. There are no fossils of the in between species.

    Also it takes great faith to believe that even if all of the elements were present to make a single cell that somehow they just jumped together and made a cell and that cell just kept evolving and now there is human. I would say that takes more faith than believing that there is a god who created everything and sustains every thing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: