Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ben Stein Blows it on Fox--ID is Religion (vanity)
Fox News | 04/20/2008 | Soliton

Posted on 04/20/2008 6:09:13 PM PDT by Soliton

Ben Stein was just on Fox News with Geraldo. He was asked If ID versus Evolution was a "left, right thing". He responded,"No, It's an atheist versus a non-believer thing". Stein inadvertantly admitted that ID is a religious argument, not science!


TOPICS: Education; Government; Religion; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: benstein; evolution; expelled
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 481-485 next last
To: Soliton

Get back to me when experiment proves the hypothesis that one species can develop into another.


181 posted on 04/21/2008 10:43:44 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
I believe we should use the intellect and curiosity that God gave us to research ALL we can about nature and the universe; learning about His creation allows us to know more about the aspects of God.

"Ah, but man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" ~ Robert Browning.

182 posted on 04/21/2008 10:47:28 AM PDT by higgmeister (In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Get back to me when experiment proves the hypothesis that one species can develop into another.

And what experiment do you have that proves the identity of the intelligent designer?

183 posted on 04/21/2008 10:48:46 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

No, I can’t say that I have. I just scan the recent posts and see if anything is interesting.


184 posted on 04/21/2008 10:52:06 AM PDT by TruthConquers (Delendae sunt publici scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
You're going to feel really stupid when Expelled wins best film for 08.

I hope the film does win but, what are the chances considering "Sicko" is considered worthy of awards?

You miss my point entirely. I love Ben. The film may be a good film. But it even has political allies discussing evolution instead of academic freedom.

As a counter example, if Ben had made a film about how Marxism is pushed in college and disagreement is punished, he would at least have the economics departments of prestigious universities as allies regarding the demerits of Marxism. Then, the debate would focus on academic freedom. Instead, he not only picks a debatable topic as his example, he picks one on which he disagrees with the vast majority of practicing scientists.

He might as well have made a film based on the ousting of a scientist who had a wacky idea about string theory or black holes. The vast majority of us would not be able to even understand enough to decide if the scientist in question was a nut or if the other scientists were tyrants.

Evolution seems understandable to everyone. If understanding the issues involved were so easy it wouldn't take over eight years of education after high school to work in the field. I think Ben made a tactical error basing a movie on a scientific issue that 99% of the audience, including other scientists in physics or chemistry, don't have a working knowledge of. It confuses the debate.

I also fear, that faithful people, by debating established science, will compromise their faith and do damage to the very cause they support. Why would a Christian make Jesus' sacrifice or God's grace dependent on what goes on in a lab somewhere? Are Christians admitting that if evolution is true then Jesus didn't die for our sins? I hope not.

185 posted on 04/21/2008 10:56:00 AM PDT by freedom_forge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

None needed.

No proof needed.

Just saying that the “fact” of evolution should be questioned, and this is NOT ALLOWED by judicial fiat.

Do you realize that the argument in the Scopes trial was that “both sides should be taught” in the interest of academic freedom?

Anyone who argues on the leftist side of any issue never argues from good faith.


186 posted on 04/21/2008 11:01:13 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

The moderators over there seem to have a quaint tradition of taking an extremely dim view of making claims about other people’s motivations or agendas.


187 posted on 04/21/2008 11:05:19 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
God is power is unlimited and thus there is no reason that macro-evolution is needed.

What if evolution was the process God chose to use?

Man is the only living being with a soul and an inborn sense of right and wrong.

Please prove the existence of the soul. Please explain societal behavior seen in most mammals, which would include how young and elderly are treated (and would show at least a rudimentary understanding of "right" and "wrong").

Clearly, belief in evolution takes a lot more faith than a belief in ID/Creation.

You don't get it. ID and evolution are NOT incompatible! Once again: ID is how it started; evolution is how it continued. The two are FUNDAMENTALLY different.

If you can't understand this fundamental point, then you really are unwilling to simply read and accept things at face value, and are no better than the "scientific fascists!" - the target of Stein - that so many in this thread decry.

188 posted on 04/21/2008 11:09:35 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

ID makes no claims about the identity of the designer. ID simply argues that the scientiffic evidence demonstrates that their must have been some designer due to the irreducible complexity of some of the biological machines and the DNA code. So, the identity of the designer is outside the scope of ID just like most evolutionists argue that the ultimate beginning of life is outside the scope of evolution.


189 posted on 04/21/2008 11:13:10 AM PDT by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister

Fortunately, it seems like every time we answer one question through science, 3 more pop up! :) I don’t think we’ll ever know everything about everything - we’ll always still have questions to answer.

It is in the exercise of our gift of the intellect to learn about His creation that we glorify God.


190 posted on 04/21/2008 11:13:15 AM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
You don't get it. ID and evolution are NOT incompatible! Once again: ID is how it started; evolution is how it continued. The two are FUNDAMENTALLY different.

If ID is true, there is no need for macro evolution. The ID argument maintains that evolution is impossible, so they can't be compatible; at least in the macro-evolution senes.

191 posted on 04/21/2008 11:30:11 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Those that believe in evolution are atheists
_______

You forgot to add that all atheists are communists, homosexual, perverts, monkey boys, Nazis, ape lovers, hippies, free love types who use Darwinism to ensure that they can have sex with as many people (gender unimportant) as possible. Oh, I nearly forgot that they kick small dogs for sport.


192 posted on 04/21/2008 11:34:30 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Unless of course, there is an Omnipotent Creator who, in six 24 hour days, spoke into being everything that exists.

I can't stay, I just wanted to say this to you.

You're thinking in the literal, think in an allegorical six days. God has infinite time on his hands. What you would call a 24 hour day in the modern sense could be a million million million days with God. Perhaps more.

Where in the Bible does it tell us six LITERAL days?

3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there
was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God
divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he
called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first
day.

Now, it that first day 24 hours as we know it to be or is it God's measure of the first day?

193 posted on 04/21/2008 11:36:35 AM PDT by processing please hold ( "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: dschapin
ID makes no claims about the identity of the designer.

Why not?

ID simply argues that the scientiffic evidence demonstrates that their must have been some designer due to the irreducible complexity of some of the biological machines and the DNA code. So, the identity of the designer is outside the scope of ID just like most evolutionists argue that the ultimate beginning of life is outside the scope of evolution.

In other words, ID doesn't try and present evidence to support it's position but instead tries and says evolution must be wrong because of A, B, and C. Therefore we must accept that if evolution is wrong the ID is right by default. That is not science.

194 posted on 04/21/2008 11:37:18 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: nmh

LOL. You are almost always the most shrill voice on any crevo thread, but somehow the evolutionists are threatened.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


195 posted on 04/21/2008 11:43:45 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MrB
No proof needed.

That is not science, that if faith.

Just saying that the “fact” of evolution should be questioned, and this is NOT ALLOWED by judicial fiat

Questioned by what? By ID, which you say requires no proof?

Do you realize that the argument in the Scopes trial was that “both sides should be taught” in the interest of academic freedom?

No I don't because your claim is not true, as any history book would tell you. The teaching of evolution was outlawed in Tennessee. That was done by act of the legislature passed on March 13, 1925 which said that the teaching of any theory which denied the biblical version of creation was a crime. There was no academic freedom involved, only religion masquerading as science.

Anyone who argues on the leftist side of any issue never argues from good faith.

Anyone who turns ID vs. Evolution into a conservative vs. liberal situation is a fool. What your trying to say is science is a liberal position.

196 posted on 04/21/2008 11:45:58 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Thats one of the two arguments that ID makes. Its second argument is that it can create a matrix or test for identifying design. Then when it finds things in nature that meet that test that shows that they have been designed. This is the positive argument that goes alongside with the negative argument against evolution. I actually wasn’t aware of this part of ID untill I read their law review article.


197 posted on 04/21/2008 11:48:37 AM PDT by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Also, why is the negative argument not science. It is based on poking scientiffic holes in the theory of evolution. To be perfectly honest I am not as concerned about seeing ID taught in schools as a theory. However, I do want the scientiffic arguments against Evolution that ID has discovered to be discussed in the schools. So, that people have a chance to realize that there are serious problems with the evolution model as it currently exists.


198 posted on 04/21/2008 11:51:41 AM PDT by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You must have misunderstood.

Those arguing FOR the teaching of evolution argued that both sides should be taught in the interest of academic freedom. Of course, this was disingenuous.

Funny that atheists/evolutionists claim the mantel of science and claim that anyone who doesn’t reject a Creator is not a scientist, when, not only the founders of modern science referred to a Creator, but the FOUNDATIONS of modern science itself rely on the concepts of the Judeo-Christian God.


199 posted on 04/21/2008 11:52:53 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: freedom_forge

You posted: “Are Christians admitting that if evolution is true then Jesus didn’t die for our sins?”

How do we know Jesus died for our sins?
How do we know mankind is sinful?
How do we know the scriptures are true?
How do we know there is a resurrection?

Was there an Adam, and an Eve? Or a Abraham?

Is Genesis true?

Is the rest of the Bible true?

I think that if Christians believe macro-evolution is true, they have to invent a new method (schizophrenic) of interpreting the Bible to continue to believe Jesus died for our sins, rose again, and is coming again. If you get to pick and choose in the Bible, what basis do you have for knowing what you accept is right, and what you reject is wrong?

Jesus seemed to have a different view of the Old Testament scriptures, as did the apostles, from our modern day viewpoints that have capitualted to “science, falsely so called.”


200 posted on 04/21/2008 11:59:08 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 481-485 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson