Ben Stein

[Einherjar86]

Since Seraphim posted the link to the video of Dawkins, I thought I'd bring this up and see what people thought. Ben Stein-lawyer, professor, writer, comedian, actor-is at the heart of a new movie advocating intelligent design and the possible benefits to teaching it in schools. I've always thought of Stein as an intelligent and level-headed human being, despite his occassional support of the intelligent design theory. Now, I'm unsure as to some of the things this film promotes. For instance:

Evolution caused the Holocaust
Scientists should be allowed to work within a framework of religion
Anti-Darwinism and claims that Darwinism is evil and supports Imperialism

I'm getting most of this preliminary information from Wikipedia, but I'm going to try and search around for more insight on this film this weekend.

In the meantime, any thoughts?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

He is a fucking idiot and I've known this for quite a while.

There is no benefit to teaching religion in schools. It's an agenda. Science aims at espousing truths, religion aims at espousing make believe fairy tales.

 

[skeptik]

When it comes to religion, science, and politics, Ben Stein is a fucking idiot. He should stick to Clear Eyes commercials and the odd penchant of knowing random, obscure facts throughout history. My god, I want to see this documentary just to see how utterly stupid it is.

 

[genocide roach]

ive always liked ben stein, despite the whole religion thing. but being an agnostic republican, ive learned that religion isnt the only thing i should base a decision on.
~gR~

 

[AchrisK]

The movie is called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

So will anyone be seeing this documentary? I plan to. There was a brief interview with him in World Magazine about the movie's claims.

 

[CAIRATH]

I'm sure the general public in America will just lap it up. Another victory for playground science and specious reasoning.

 

[Zephyrus]

Since Seraphim posted the link to the video of Dawkins, I thought I'd bring this up and see what people thought. Ben Stein-lawyer, professor, writer, comedian, actor-is at the heart of a new movie advocating intelligent design and the possible benefits to teaching it in schools. I've always thought of Stein as an intelligent and level-headed human being, despite his occassional support of the intelligent design theory. Now, I'm unsure as to some of the things this film promotes. For instance:

Evolution caused the Holocaust
Scientists should be allowed to work within a framework of religion
Anti-Darwinism and claims that Darwinism is evil and supports Imperialism

I'm getting most of this preliminary information from Wikipedia, but I'm going to try and search around for more insight on this film this weekend.

In the meantime, any thoughts?

I can see how such arguments can be constructed, but by no way do they validate intelligent design. It's a logical fallacy to prove one theory just because you blame another theory for causing bad things to happen.

 

[AchrisK]

I think some of the crux of the argument is that believing in evolution as fact involves faith, so if we are allowing discussion of things taken on faith, why not allow points of view from other faiths.

 

[Zephyrus]

Because evolution has the most validity in terms of science.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, something that I disagree with is the idea of allowing scientists to work within a framework of religion. I mean, I don't think that all scientists should be atheists or not have religious beliefs; but someone who works in the field of science has to be able to separate religious ideologies from scientific reason and experimentation.

 

[AchrisK]

Well, I understand that science has much evidence that they point to in support of evolution, but there is still so much not known, and so much that has not been demonstrated and/or repeated. Regardless, it is called a fact, and embraced zealously. Sounds like faith.

Now if it wasn't taught as fact, that might be a different story.

 

[AchrisK]

Well, something that I disagree with is the idea of allowing scientists to work within a framework of religion. I mean, I don't think that all scientists should be atheists or not have religious beliefs; but someone who works in the field of science has to be able to separate religious ideologies from scientific reason and experimentation.

Yeah, I agree. What kind of scientist would a person be if they never investigated anything and just blamed it on (or attributed it to) a creator. I think a creator can be a fall-back position for an individual, and can be an idea allowed in discussion, but since that cannot be proved, tested and repeated via science, it obviously can't be a conclusion in a scientific study.

 

[CAIRATH]

It doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. It depends on what field of science you work in to some extent (biology obviously being a more contested field by religion than something like chemistry would be) and how you deal with your personal beliefs when they conflict with science. As far as I'm concerned the latter is entirely up to the individual. Biologist Ken Miller is an example of someone who has managed to do this. He is a Catholic but has been one of the most fervent opposers of creationism and the idea that ID should be taught in classes alongside evolution. I don't know how he can reconcile the two (he's written a book on why he thinks belief in God is compatible with evolution but I've not read it), but that is entirely up to him as far as I'm concerned.

There are ofcourse also examples where it doesn't work, like Michael Behe (a biochemist), who clearly struggles with the duality of his scientific side and his religious side and freely lets the latter work its way into the former resulting in his easily (and oft) refuted "irreducible complexity" theory and his fight to have ID accepted alongside evolution in the education system.

The former is a respected member of the scientific community. The latter has pretty much been ostracized from it (and rightfully so), or more accurately, has ostracized himself from it by going against the most basic principles on which science functions.

 

[genocide roach]

Well, something that I disagree with is the idea of allowing scientists to work within a framework of religion. I mean, I don't think that all scientists should be atheists or not have religious beliefs; but someone who works in the field of science has to be able to separate religious ideologies from scientific reason and experimentation.

we shouldnt limit scientists. if they wanna run tests with a religious base, let them. science should explore every possible avenue
~gR~

 

[Einherjar86]

^That's interesting. However, there are specific cases in history where religious beliefs conflicted with scientific reason. For instance, the Jesuit "scientist" Joseph Acosta came to America during the Age of Exploration and couldn't for the life of him figure out how animals found in Europe had made it to America. In his ideology, all life on Earth died during the Flood, except for the animals that Noah saved. Since Noah landed in Europe, no animals should have been able to make their way to America; and yet there they were!

During Acosta's time, this seemed like a legitimate mystery, and it was religion that prevented him from discovering the true scientific reason for the presence of animals in the Americas. Acosta actually even entertains the notion that perhaps the animals swam over from Europe. This is the kind of confliction that worries me about religious scientific exploration. There are certain religious foundations that won't tolerate scientific explanation.

 

[AchrisK]

I also believe we shouldn't limit scientists, but I can't see them being able to conclude God from experimentation.

 

[Zephyrus]

Well, I understand that science has much evidence that they point to in support of evolution, but there is still so much not known, and so much that has not been demonstrated and/or repeated. Regardless, it is called a fact, and embraced zealously. Sounds like faith.

Now if it wasn't taught as fact, that might be a different story.

I wouldn't call drawing conclusions based scientific evidence a demonstration of faith.

 

[AchrisK]

^It's one thing to develop and try to support a system of views, and identify it as such. It's quite another to call it fact and present it as such to the world, including my kid.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Well, I understand that science has much evidence that they point to in support of evolution, but there is still so much not known, and so much that has not been demonstrated and/or repeated. Regardless, it is called a fact, and embraced zealously. Sounds like faith.

Now if it wasn't taught as fact, that might be a different story.

So because there is so much not known we should believe in mysterious, archaic texts with no real basis in reality whatsoever and believe that an invisible, unknowable higher power created everything and put the dinosaurs there to trick us? That sounds 50000000 times more stupid.

What kind of scientist would a person be if they never investigated anything and just blamed it on (or attributed it to) a creator.

They'd be an advocate of intelligent design, or a pseudo-scientist.

 

[AchrisK]

So because there is so much not known we should believe in mysterious, archaic texts with no real basis in reality whatsoever and believe that an invisible, unknowable higher power created everything and put the dinosaurs there to trick us? That sounds 50000000 times more stupid.

You guys use the same arguments over and over, which tend to just brush by my points and attempt to make them look ridiculous. I never said that. I said, don't call fact what you can't even prove or demonstrate. And if you can't even prove or demonstrate your theory, which you call fact (faith), why do you so vehemently oppose the idea that other people have theories, also based in faith?

And, along those lines, why not allow them to be presented along side of your ideas?

Or, how about not calling your theory a fact? I think that would be a big step.