Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists

Media Research Center ^ | April 17, 2008 | L. Brent Bozell III

[Aristotelian]

I confess that when the producers of Ben Stein’s new documentary “Expelled” called, offering me a private screening, I was less than excited.

It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay “rights.” Abortion “rights.” On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism’s power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension.

Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles. An entire documentary to state the obvious? You can see my reluctance to view it.

I went into the screening bored. I came out of it stunned.

Ben Stein’s extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.

Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics – experts all -- who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves “expelled” from intellectual discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State University).

That’s disturbing enough, but what Stein does next is truly shocking. He allows the principal advocates of Darwinism to speak their minds.

[MrB]

Quite persistant in proving my point, aren’t you?

Funny, though...
I’ll infer that you’re trying to prove some point that anything that can’t be tested with the scientific method of observation, forming an hypothesis, then proving that hypothesis through experiments that repeatedly show the conclusion,

must be “faith based” and therefore completely dismissable,

your faith based religion of macro-evolution falls right into that concept, because macro-evolution can’t be repeatedly proven through experimentation. Not even once.

[ketsu]

Quite persistant in proving my point, aren’t you?

Funny, though... I’ll infer that you’re trying to prove some point that anything that can’t be tested with the scientific method of observation, forming an hypothesis, then proving that hypothesis through experiments that repeatedly show the conclusion,

must be “faith based” and therefore completely dismissable,

your faith based religion of macro-evolution falls right into that concept, because macro-evolution can’t be repeatedly proven through experimentation. Not even once.

You finally said it! Here's why you're ignorant of the scientific method(and why I've been waiting for you to make a fool of yourself the whole time). The scientific method only requires *lack of a counterexample* when testing a hypothesis. If scientists held your shall we say "interesting" views on the scientific method, plenty of sciences, especially theoretical Physics would fall completely apart.

Remember Luminiferous aether?

[Para-Ord.45]

Still proving Ben Stein`s point I see. Let`s review just how ridiculous you look:

YOU: “I’m just pointing out that the previous moron...”

ME: “The line from Bozell`s column: “One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens” “

YOU: “So you agree that they were talking about amino acids not proteins? ...I don’t see any proteins in your quote, just “organic matter”. So you admit your were lying? “

Your irrational comments make us “morons” look positively sapient.

Now since I`ve dispatched your previous nothings with aplumb, let`s move on to your jejune theory.

Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction, cannot be 100% neutral.
Where are all the failed mutated fossils?

[728b]

So Stein tricks them by not revealing the name of the documentary?

One must ask the question.

Do the scientist need to know the objective of a documentary so they can adjust the truth?

It appears that TRUTH as these guys see it depends upon who is asking the question. It also appears to me the referenced article and the overall whining of it support Stein’s position that many in science will do anything to stop dissenting views.

[ketsu]

Your irrational comments make us “morons” look positively sapient.

Now since I`ve dispatched your previous nothings with aplumb, let`s move on to your jejune theory.

Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction, cannot be 100% neutral. Where are all the failed mutated fossils?

aplumb? LOL.... I've been trying to ignore your spelling errors("junoir" or whatever it was) but that was pretty funny.

Speaking of which, how long are you going to keep dissembling? I notice that you've conveniently forgotten your initial blather about "proteins". Are you hoping I won't notice?

[Para-Ord.45]

I`ve noticed you enjoy the word notice.Also noticed when an opponent begins to flounder they will attempt to grab any lifeline possible to save themselves, spellcheck being the first refuge of an intellectual scoundrel.

I`m willing to embarrass you once more and explain why the first protein could not invent itself but I`ll let your own idiosyncratic thoughts do the work and continue to move forward to disassemble your OoS theory you cling to like an AGW scientist clings to a tree.

ME: “The line from Bozell`s column: “One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens” “

YOU: “So you agree that they were talking about amino acids not proteins? ...I don’t see any proteins in your quote, just “organic matter”. So you admit your were lying? “

LOL

Your drivelings are as usual,at once, both priceless and worthless.

Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction, cannot be 100% neutral.Where are all the failed mutated fossils?

[Doctor Raoul]

I'll go tonight to reward Ben's effort to turn the tide and encourage others to make similar movies.

Perhaps it will send a message to Hollywood.

Can't wait to see it. Ben's a rip.

[FreedomCalls]

They were the beginning.

Just thinking...

So who created them?

Just thinking...

[bcsco]

So who created them?

Read the Bible.

Just thinking...

[MrB]

wow... didn’t know it would give you such a thrill. Hope you didn’t have to change your pants over it.

it is amazing... you base all that arrogance on a lack of counterexample to a theory that has no demonstrable examples.

I have to thank you, however, for providing some insight into why atheists are so emotionally invested in evolution. It’s the only “counterexample” that you can try to point to to justify your unwillingness to believe in a Creator.

Thanks again - have a nice day. And clean up that spot on your pants.

[tongass kid]

The point of my last post is that the criteria for the fossil record is not mine but Darwin's. He hypothesized that the record would eventually provided the evidence to support his theory. Most life scientist agree that the record will never support his theory. Therefore, the serious discussion of evolution has left the dirt behind and move into the genetics lab. I would encourage those that would like to understand the topic better also move from the dirt to the lab. Darwin did not have the advantage of genetics and therefore heavily relied on comparative morphology. If he were alive today you would probably find him in the genetics lab.

[rickomatic]

Harumph. "As for me and my house ..." What self-righteous prattle!

Sorry you misunderstood my statement, Finny. My point was that whether or not evolution as taught today is true or not, whether it fits into God's plan as part of creation, or NOT, in and of itself is immaterial to me. My trust is in the Lord. And, my love for Him and my trust in Him is in no way affected by evolution's veracity or lack thereof. Evolutionary theory, as long as it does not outwardly try to diminish God's character, is unimportant, and merely an interesting point of discussion.
Also, I am sorry that you find someone's trust in the living God to be "self righteous prattle." I assure you, it is anything BUT that. It is a total and complete comfort.

[allmendream]

And in the genetics lab, (you would agree?) Darwin's theory has met with BRILLIANT success.

You cannot seem to answer any of the VERY SIMPLE questions I put to you about where you think emerging species come from, or what exact narrative you think the fossil record supports.

Are you being deliberately evasive or do you really have no knowledge or opinion on these issues.

[tongass kid]

You have correctly stated the problem. Darwin thought that he would find your “emerging species”. They have not been found. The record is redundant with fully formed non-emerging species. I suggest those that are interested in Darwinain evolution read his 1859 book. The book contains no complex scientific language because it was written at a time when life science was in its infancy's. You might say the book is so simple that even a cave man could understand it. Now if you would like to discuss non-Darwinain evolution as related to genetics and biochem there exist evidence that is troubling to the theory of evolution.

[allmendream]

And I suppose you will be as forthcoming detailing THESE supposed genetic problems for the theory as you have been about the fossil record? That is to say, NOT AT ALL.

Where did the hoofed and winged mammals come from? Where did the dinosaurs come from?

The evidence of their emergence from earlier species may not be complete enough or gradual enough for your satisfaction; but they do show that these species did not exist before a certain time. Where do you suppose they came from?

Do you think either the genetic record or the fossil record supports their emergence all at the same time and the same place? Perhaps some few thousand years ago?

[atlaw]

The record is redundant with fully formed non-emerging species.

What would a "partially formed emerging species" look like?

[tongass kid]

You are getting closer to the problem with the fossil record. The record contains many creatures great and small as observed by Darwin and others, it just does not contain the many transition form that would tell us where “they come from”.
The fossil record tells us that the life forms are there, it just does not tell us where they come from. We are making some progress, and I was hoping that we may perhaps move out of the comparative morphology and dirt to other areas.

[MrB]

The argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true.

Someone earlier was trying to state that the scientific method states that a hypothesis (evolution) is true since a counter-example wasn’t provided. I didn’t think that sounded logical, so I found some proof in the study of logical fallacies.

This is argumentum ad ignorantiam - argument from ignorance.

[allmendream]

I am getting closer? Please spare me your condescension. How could I get any “closer” when you haven't provided any actual information. All I have done so far is diagnose your quibble with the fossil record that it doesn't show change that is “gradual” or “transitional” enough to satisfy what you think it should show.

The fact that you are looking for horribly mutated fossils shows just how uninformed and unthoughtout your approach to the subject is.

Answer any of my questions yet?

No.

Where do you suppose these fossils come from?

Is your assumption that they all came about at the same time?

Do you actually think that the fossil record supports THAT preposterous notion?

Please feel free to display your ignorance of genetics as well. I can't wait to hear how all the genomic data that indicates common ancestry is all a huge blow to the theory of Evolution.

[tongass kid]

Good question, I don't know. If you read the prior post the “emerging species” is the language of the other post person. It is my attempt to move him from that to a more descriptive phase such as “transitional”. The point is that Darwin hypothesized that we would eventually fill in the gaps in the fossil record. It just has not happened. I believe that Darwin was an honest man and did the best with what he had. The problem is he had very little to work with and I believe if he had todays information his hypothesis may be notably different.