A critique of Ben STein's Knowledge base
SOME BRITISH GUY
DrewDad wrote:georgeob1 wrote:DrewDad wrote:Quote:Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God?
Which continually begs the question, where did God come from and Who designed Him?
Actually, if DrewDad will reexamine his words here - it is he who is begging the question.
Er... I
asked the question. Anyone have an answer?
In our perception of reality, we are limited by the 3 dimensions of space and the linear course of time. Yet there is considerable speculation of other dimensions and views of time that exist apart from our ability to articulate them.
Certainly, if the creator exists as the Hebrews knew him, Jehovah, "He who causes to become", that descriptive name allows for the thought that perhaps God has fabricated or even created space and time so that we might experience what we call reality.
If the above is true, then questions about the origins of the universe or the history of God are infinitely sublime.
So, we're just a simulation running on God's desktop.....
So is gunga the only one whose seen it yet? I heard that its going to video really quick and that its "real audience" The many Bible centered churhes around the country, can get their own copies and use it for post worship entertainment.
This will be a very popular product , I predict.
neologist wrote:"He who causes to become"...
... is limiting to the concept of God.
God should not be limited to being a "He" or a "Who", so a better phrase might be "That which causes to become".
And God should not be limited by causality, so "causes to become" also doesn't really do the concept justice.
The phrase really should be "That which is".
DrewDad wrote:So, we're just a simulation running on God's desktop.....
or maybe God's desktop is just a simulation running on God's desktop.
farmerman wrote:So is gunga the only one whose seen it yet? I heard that its going to video really quick and that its "real audience" The many Bible centered churhes around the country, can get their own copies and use it for post worship entertainment.
This will be a very popular product , I predict.
Yeh, basically it'll serve the same function as depicted in that old Saturday Night Live skit in which that guy (an emotional basket-case) sits in front of a mirror telling himself "I'm OK. I'm a good person."
That was Phil Hartman I believe. He later did a do-it-yourself brain surgery with a 45.
Im sort of amazed at how , around here at least, the opportunity for Evangelizing surrounds the showing of the movie. Yet the entire founding precept of ID is that, somehow, IT IS SCIENCE.
It's a hit piece ala Michael Moore and therefore I won't watch it.
Still, people should not be afraid to question Darwinism. Questioning everything is the mark of a GOOD scientist.
cjhsa wrote:Still, people should not be afraid to question Darwinism. Questioning everything is the mark of a GOOD scientist.
"Darwinism" was replaced by the modern theory of evolution many decades ago, and it is the very nature of science to challenge its own theories. As such the Theory of Evolution has been fine tuned to an incredible degree of accuracy over the last hundred years.
The only people who are not questioning things are the creationists who are not questioning their own basic assumptions in relation to known science. They are the LAST People who should be throwing stones at the scientific process.
I think you miss the point of the movie entirely.
cjhsa wrote:I think you miss the point of the movie entirely.
I wasn't commenting on the point of the movie. I was just making a general statement in response to your comments.
But just out of curiosity, what do you think the point of the movie is?
I think it's two things. That presenting ID as an alternative can ruin your career, and that scientists tend to be afraid of God.
Unfortunately the movie is done ala Moore and uses trickery and flat out lies to try and look like a documentary. It isn't. It's propaganda.
Questioning Darqin is exactly how we got to a modern evolutionary synthesis . In the 1940's was when the big jump to a more quantitative support was nailed down (genetics, paleocladistics, population dynamics etc). Questioning Darwin, por Dobzhansky, or Eldredge, or Mayr is always correct. What is not good logic is automatically defaulting to mythology. (AND ID is mythology based, because it relies on anINTELLIGENT outside intervention every time a new lifeform appears). WHile outside intervention can be a catalyst, evidence strongly suggests that this intervention is nothing more than the environment asserting its place.
cjhsa wrote:I think it's two things. That presenting ID as an alternative can ruin your career, and that scientists tend to be afraid of God.
I agree that those are both points which the movie probably tries to make.
But while presenting ID as an alternative can possibly ruin your career (and for good reason), I doubt that scientists are afraid of God.
cjhsa wrote:Unfortunately the movie is done ala Moore and uses trickery and flat out lies to try and look like a documentary. It isn't. It's propaganda.
I agree (based on various reports I've heard about the movie).
I doubt that scientists are afraid of God.
There is no scientific discipline where you even have to think about God.
The only reason you would have to do that, is if you accepted a Templeton Foundation grant or wanted to win a Templeton Foundation prize. And if you wanted to do either of that, being afraid of God is the last thing you want to do.
Science isn't about saying, "Hey, there's this thing we don't understand, therefore God did it".
God did it? If you believe in God, then proving that God did something should be the last thing on your mind. You should be proving how God did it, not saying, "there's this irreducible complex adaptation, it couldn't possibly have evolved, therefore God must be responsible." Yes, if you're a Christian, then that's blindingly obvious. There's no reason to try and prove that. You want to prove how he did it, so you can say, "Oh, so that's how he did. Isn't he clever?"
But no.
ID doesn't even come close to doing that.
Quote:You want to prove how he did it, so you can say, "Oh, so that's how he did. Isn't he clever?"
But no.
ID doesn't even come close to doing that.
For the IDer represented by the likes of Spendi, it's 'cause they don't want to take anymore time away from the pub than what is absolutely necessary.
"The platypus is the way he is because the Intelligent Designer made him that way.
Let's go get us a pint now."
rosborne979 wrote:cjhsa wrote:Still, people should not be afraid to question Darwinism. Questioning everything is the mark of a GOOD scientist.
"Darwinism" was replaced by the modern theory of evolution many decades ago, and it is the very nature of science to challenge its own theories. As such the Theory of Evolution has been fine tuned to an incredible degree of accuracy over the last hundred years.
.....
The theory of evolution, all variants involving claims of anything beyond simple microevolution, is a total crock of **** which has been thoroughly debunked over a vey long period of time, in ways too numerous to count, and is at present only being defended by academic dead wood and losers. No body with any brains or talent believes in it any more.
