[__ Science __ ] ben stein on id scientists vs evolution scientists

[Barbarian]

all false accusations against good people are rooted in hatred of a religious or political position

Hence Ben Stein's false accusations against scientists. Exactly that motivation.

Even the right-wing National Review couldn't tolerate it:

Science Equals Murder
In an interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Ben Stein said the following amazing thing in an interview with Paul Crouch, Jr.

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.

...It’s a pity Crouch didn’t invite the Rev. Jeremiah Wright into the studio for a three-way conversation. It would have elevated the tone.
What it brought to my mind, when I had calmed down a bit, was Voltaire’s letter to Rousseau, after the latter had sent the former a copy of The Social Contract in which Rousseau argues, to put it in the smallest possible nutshell, that civilization is a crock. Voltaire:

I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit for more than sixty years, I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it. Nor can I embark in search of the savages of Canada, because the maladies to which I am condemned render a European surgeon necessary to me; because war is going on in those regions; and because the example of our actions has made the savages nearly as bad as ourselves.

Meanwhile, the Blood Libel character of what Stein is saying is beginning to dawn on thoughtful Jews. The Anti-Defamation League has issued a statement deploring Stein’s Darwin-inspired-the Holocaust thesis.
Comments
And there are NRO readers who are on board with this dreck? I need a drink.

Science Equals Murder | National Review

In an interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Ben Stein said the following amazing thing in an interview with Paul Crouch, Jr. Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers …

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Barbarian]

political and anti-christian bias creates silly things like this

It's just a fact. Even Stein doesn't deny it. Wouldn't do much good; he said it on a Christian radio broadcast.

i prefer Godly christian news sources

Paul Franklin Crouch Jr. (born March 13, 1959) is an American Christian broadcaster. He currently serves as chairman and chief studio designer for Cinemills Corporation. However, he is best known for his long association with the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), which was founded by his parents Paul and Jan Crouch.

Paul Crouch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

The Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) is an international Christian-based broadcast television network[1][2] and the world's largest religious television network.[3] TBN was headquartered in Costa Mesa, California until March 3, 2017 when it sold its highly visible office park.[4] The broadcaster will retain its Tustin, California facilities. Auxiliary studio facilities are located in Irving, Texas; Hendersonville, Tennessee; Gadsden, Alabama; Decatur, Georgia; Miami, Florida; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Orlando, Florida; and New York City. TBN broadcasts programs hosted by a diverse group of ministries from Evangelical, traditional Protestant and Catholic denominations, non-profit charities, Messianic Jewish and Christian media personalities.[5] TBN also offers a wide range of original programming, and faith-based films from various distributors.[6]
TBN owns and operates six broadcast networks, each reaching separate demographics; in addition to the main TBN network, TBN owns Hillsong Channel, Smile, TBN Enlace, TBN Salsa and JUCE TV. It also owns several other religious networks outside the United States, including international versions of its five U.S. networks. Matt Crouch currently serves as TBN's president and head of operations.

... Traditional Protestant pastors that air on TBN include Dr. Charles Stanley, Franklin Graham, Billy Graham, Michael Youseff, David Jeremiah and Robert Jeffress. Senator Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Finance has conducted investigations into whether Hinn, White, Copeland, Dollar, Meyer or Long mishandled their finances; none were found to have committed wrongdoing.[

Trinity Broadcasting Network - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Barbarian]

it's not a fact

It is a fact. Stein himself has acknowledged it. And the source is a Christian media outlet.

your sources are highly suspect and biased

I don't think Christians are prone to lie.

 

[Clizby]

there are actually more creation intelligent design scientists than we think - the problem is they lose their wiki pages or their fellowship / research / university job when they come out in support of intelligent design

ben stein's movie expelled no intelligence allowed exposes all this

1. https://www.haaretz.com/science-and...inst-evolution-loses-wikipedia-page-1.5466166

2. https://uncommondescent.com/intelli...igent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/

3. https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

4. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

5. https://evolutionnews.org/2007/05/scientists_who_support_intelli/

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_on_intelligent_design

7. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists

The reason ID is not science is because it is a "science" to confirm a conclusion. The conclusion that ID is correct has been assumed and they are trying to find evidence to support that conclusion, evidence to the contrary is dismissed. The idea is that if something is so complex it is assumed that it could not have come into existence by natural processes it must be designed. You cannot say because we don't know how something happened that it had to be designed, that is not science.

 

[Clizby]

also an exact representation of evolution theory posing as "science"

How is evolution not science?

so i guess we are all left to decide if we believe God and scientists who believe in God or if we want to stand on the precarious perch of believing scientists who want to prove their is no God just as darwin wanted to do

Or do you believe the christian scientists that believe evolution happened?

But this shows what is wrong with your epistemology. Why would just believe what someone says on an important topic like this? The information is there to study and learn. I spent 3 months learning why scientists believe evolution is a fact. The evidence is so overwhelming that denying it is denying a fact like gravity exists.

In the end though, the existence of a god is not contingent on whether evolution is true or not. If evolution is false then we still cannot determine if a god exists. If evolution is true then at least the Bible cannot be literal.

Saying scientists just want to disprove god is a slanderous accusation without evidence. If a scientists could disprove evolution or prove a god exists then they would be the most famous scientist ever. Most scientists don't care if god exists or not and are not beholden to a belief, but can change what they believe based on evidence.

 

[Clizby]

it is a theory - it is not a science - that is one thing most people overlook

A scientific theory is the most robust and supported idea in science. Many different fields support evolution and it has not been able to be falsified when there are hundreds of ways to falsify it. It is supported by repeated testable experimentation. Please read what a scientific theory really is. Do you deny cell theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory etc?

so every scientist takes the observable and testable EVIDENCE and depending on their POV they seek to explain what CONCLUSION the evidence supports

But that is not all that happens. It is then put out there for all to look at and other scientists scrutinize the conclusions made and modify them through experimentation.

i spent a lifetime researching the truth about many things including evolution

But you don't even know what a scientific theory is.

throwing around goofy ideas like flat earth etc does not prove evolution is a science rather than a theory

A theory is the result of science, please read what a scientific theory is.

there are scientists for God and against God - you believe those against God which is fine with me - i believe those who are for God - which appears to be not fine with you - why? - what does it matter to you what i believe?

No, I don't believe those scientists that are against god. I believe the science. Why believe only the scientists that are for god? Why not evaluate the evidence for yourself and what about the christian scientists that believe in evolution?

you can choose your favorite theory if you want and stand on it - but imo denying God exists simply because you lean on the theory of evolution is precarious

That is not why I am not a believer. I also do not deny gods existence. I am not convinced he exists. For what reasons do you believe that god exists?

what is better imo is ASK God to prove to you if He is real or not

I did for 18 years or so. I wanted to be the best Christian I could so I studied and begged god to show me he exists. I believed for bad reasons but never because god showed himself to me. I am not saying god does not exist, I am saying he has not been demonstrated to exist.

then you can tackle other issues AFTER that one is settled

It is not on me to settle it. I cannot prove god does not exist, god can prove to me that he does exist, the ball is in his court.

 

[Clizby]

not necessarily but nonetheless it is still just a THEORY which is quite different from a FACT

You have no idea then what a scientific theory is. If you want to learn go look it up, if not then stay ignorant on the subject.

 

[Clizby]

that is also not true - in every field of science there are opposing conclusions based on the exact same observable evidence

scientists are not in 100% agreement about anything

Another distortion of science. Science does not claim to find absolute truth but it has demonstrated that it gets as close to the truth as we can get.

Pew Research

97% of scientists believe evolution happened. I doubt there are 97% of Christians that agree on anything, so why believe in the christian god if this is your argument. The amount of people that believe something does not mean it is true. The evidence is why scientists believe evolution happened.

 

[Clizby]

you are the one that is conflating provable FACT with THEORY

No. Facts support theories in science. Please learn what a scientific theory is.

 

[Clizby]

i can ask you the same thing - why believe only anti-God scientists? - why not believe the scientists who believe the evidence supports creation?

Because I don't believe the scientists, I believe the evidence they provide.

You are just basing your belief on the scientists that support your beliefs and rejecting the other ones. That is not good epistemology. Beliefs are not a choice you are convinced by the evidence or not. I did not seek to become an atheist I became an atheist because I followed the evidence.

 

[Clizby]

i believe God exists because as a skeptical person i needed proof - i dealt with God directly and super seriously - each time God Himself gave me a proof He existed i got excited at first and said "that's God" then my 2nd thought was "that's only a coincidence"

What proof did he give you?

this happened over and over for a period of time but i kept intensely asking God to prove Himself and He did

How?

finally one day i had another proof directly from God and had the 1st and 2nd responses but this time i had a 3rd response - "coincidences don't happen 100% of the time" - so that was it for me - i stand in faith in God and God KEEPS proving Himself to me over and over in other issues i have - like need for healing - finances - provision - favor - safety - etc

How is this proof?

imo until a skeptic is convinced to the core BY GOD HIMSELF a skeptic will keep behaving like doubting thomas

Yet god granted the request of Thomas and showed him proof. Why not for me?

some believers are not skeptics and have a profound faith in God - which is nice - but i am the skeptical type personality so i need/want more personal interaction and direct proof from God than most christians do

and God is pleased to have personal interaction with whosoever wants it

What is this direct personal interaction?

the ball is actually in your court to KEEP pestering God to give you proof - the ball is in HIS court to PROVE HIMSELF to you

I did form many years. Is it in my court to pursue Allah and all the other gods that people claim without evidence? Have you pursued Allah or Zeus to see if they exists as well?

HE is not a lackey that you can disrespect Him and expect Him to perform like a circus monkey for you - you need to be extremely respectful of GOD as you pursue Him

One screw up and he just pouts and nope I will not let him know I exist? Where in the bible does it say this?

once you start disrespecting God YOU are PLAYING GOD and God has nothing to do with pride and arrogance

I was respectful as I could be for many years.

 

[Clizby]

i ask the same of you

Here is what a scientific theory is:

Theories on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. They are concise (i.e., generally don't have a long list of exceptions and special rules), coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable. In fact, theories often integrate and generalize many hypotheses. For example, the theory of natural selection broadly applies to all populations with some form of inheritance, variation, and differential reproductive success — whether that population is composed of alpine butterflies, fruit flies on a tropical island, a new form of life discovered on Mars, or even bits in a computer's memory. This theory helps us understand a wide range of observations (from the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the physical match between pollinators and their preferred flowers), makes predictions in new situations (e.g., that treating AIDS patients with a cocktail of medications should slow the evolution of the virus), and has proven itself time and time again in thousands of experiments and observational studies.

JUST" A THEORY?
Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory (it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth), but it is not "just" a theory.

Words with both technical and everyday meanings often cause confusion. Even scientists sometimes use the word theory when they really mean hypothesis or even just a hunch. Many technical fields have similar vocabulary problems — for example, both the terms work in physics and ego in psychology have specific meanings in their technical fields that differ from their common uses. However, context and a little background knowledge are usually sufficient to figure out which meaning is intended.

This site is endorsed by scientists.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

 

[Clizby]

as are you - you seem to miss the weakness of your own position - your pov causes you to believe atheist scientists - my pov causes me to believe Godly scientists

Nope. As I have said already I believe the supporting evidence that scientists find, no matter who finds it.

you also have a double weakness because you don't know for sure if God exists - so your pov is based on lack of knowledge of some important facts that make a difference as to which pov to subscribe to

Knowledge that you cannot demonstrate to be true. If I believed every piece of knowledge someone claimed without demonstration then I would believe anything. That is not skepticism and is bad epistemology. Skepticism requires you to believe the evidence, evolution has overwhelming evidence and god has none.

 

[Clizby]

actually their pov slants their beliefs about the observable facts

evolution is a theory just as atheists believe creation is unscientific

Creationism is not scientific because it is not testable, observable or can make any predictions and mainly because it is not falsifiable. How can you falsify creationism? If it is not falsifiable it is not science.

 

[WIP]

Science does not claim to find absolute truth but it has demonstrated that it gets as close to the truth as we can get.

This may be a true statement however the key here was your last few words, "as we can get." We are basing our scientific knowledge about God based on our observations after the fact. In other words, we are trying to describe infallible Godly things using fallible human understanding.

 

[Clizby]

This may be a true statement however the key here was your last few words, "as we can get." We are basing our scientific knowledge about God based on our observations after the fact. In other words, we are trying to describe infallible Godly things using fallible human understanding.

I disagree. With this you are saying we cannot know anything. We can demonstrate that gravity works, we can demonstrate that atoms exist etc. The reason I say the we cannot know anything absolutely is more of a philosophical issue of solipsism than with epistemology. We can know that the facts that support evolution are true and that evolution is true but may not be 100% understood. It is very unlikely that the theory of gravity, atoms and evolution will be radically altered but that doe snot mean that it won't be tweaked with new information.

 

[Clizby]

neither is evolution - no missing links have ever been found

Untrue. All finds are missing links. You deniers always claim this after a new transition fossil is discovered and just say well were is the in between that one.

natural selection causes the best available traits to survive adverse circumstances - but that is not true evolution - one species turning into another species - the basis of evolution creating all life on earth from the primordial soup

We have not solved the riddle of abiogenesis. A primordial soup may not have existed. We do know that life changes over time through mutations and natural selection into new species. We have observed speciation in nature, it happens. I wonder if this site would let me give the evidences for evolution?

 

[WIP]

I disagree. With this you are saying we cannot know anything.

That is not what I'm saying at all. We can know some things but some things are beyond our understanding so we postulate theories based on evidences. There was a time when we believed the world was flat and anyone that disagreed with that belief was considered a nutcase. It was the science of the day but we now know it was not true because we have been able to circumnavigate it many, many times and even see it from as far away as the moon and beyond.

We can demonstrate that gravity works, we can demonstrate that atoms exist etc.

Yes, but we still do not know for sure what it is. We can only explain the effect of gravity and that is my point.

 

[Clizby]

there are established species but there are no confirmed missing links proving one species changed into another species -

Evolution scientists do not talk about missing links, they talk about transitional fossils. Unfortunately those don't meet the unscientific definition of a "missing link."

there are claims of a few bones or fragments being creatively drawn into a complete creature and becoming the miraculous "missing link" - we don't deny true science - we deny this kind of fraud - all "missing links" are these kinds of frauds

Yes there have been frauds and these have been exposed by other scientists as frauds.

and there are no observable cases today of one species changing into another

This is simply not true.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

natural selection is provable - period

one species changing into another is not

This is an untrue statement. Where did you learn how evolution works? Have you studies Phylogeny?

 

[Clizby]

interesting article

some flowers cross pollinated and produced another flower which evolution scientists are now classifying as a new species - i would have to study it further to say anything in depth about this claim of being a new species

It is the scientific definition of a species change.

but for myself this is an extremely poor proof to back of the claims evolutionists make about how a fish became a land creature - or a lizard became a bird - or a monkey became a man -

This was proof that speciation does occur not proof of the entire theory of evolution.

No evolutionary scientist would say that:

Fish became land creatures, this is untrue but both fish and land creatures are both Deuterostomes.

or

lizards became birds, this is untrue but they are both amniotes and reptiles.

or

monkeys became man, this is untrue but they are both apes and vertebrates.

No organism or animal can change into anything that defies its ancestry. This is a law so to speak of evolution and is a point of potential falsification for evolution. If we did find a lizard becoming a bird it would falsify much of evolution as a theory.

or even how a simple single cell life-form became a complicated life-form with eyes lungs limbs brain etc.

It does, but if you want to learn why it will take time and study.

iow a flower is still a flower - fail to see how this is speciation

It is because you don't understand evolution or the definition of species.