Ben Stein Documentary 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' Intelligent Design v. Question Darwinism

The Peoples Media Company ^ | Nov 05, 2007 | L. Vincent Poupard

[allmendream]

It was designed to spread malaria. ;)

[BuckeyeForever]

You wrote: “That said, the dogma, “Evolution proves there is no God” shares both those traits. It is religion, and it is not science.”
___________________
My response: [Macro] Evolution does not prove there is no god, i.e. a creator of the universe. If macro-evolution has occurred, however, it is contrary to the ridiculous fairy-tale myths of creation of the universe in the Bible, and the equally laughable Adam and Eve creation myth in the Bible. Macro-evolution is therefore contradictory of the Bible, and Christianity in particular. Nevertheless, macro-evolution does not per se disprove “religion,” if you mean that term broadly to include belief in a supernatural deity that created the universe. However, macro-evolution certainly is not dependant upon the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe. To say that macro-evolution is itself a religion is not logical.

[William Terrell]

The angle is tempting, but,

If God had used interspecies evolution to populate the Earth from a one celled organism He created in His Own Mud Puddle, it would mean He chose to work within material reality's paradigms.

The paradigms that compel that process would be as obvious as gravity. They would be enumerated and demonstrable.

They are not, in any degree that would be compelling, which they must be in order to be paradigms. By virtue of the lack of this ring of truth there is society wide resistance like there is not to all other paradigms of His world.

I applaud the cleverness of this strategy to bring those who believe in a Creator into the fold with those who fear the concept of a Creator.

For, after the faithful buy the notion of cross species evolution as a physical paradigm created by God the next question will be, why is God even necessary, when the process has been declared and agreed to be one where no Creator is necessary. And there, my friends, the sound byte debate can legitimately and publicly declared to be over.

It's called a Trojan horse and it's a famous strategy. Falling for a famous strategy is embarrassing.

[AwesomePossum]

It was designed to prove to environuts that the use of DDT kills far fewer folks than the absence of DDT...........

:}

[BuckeyeForever]

You wrote: “Nothing in Catholic doctrine is incompatible with modern Biology.”
___________________________

I about busted a gut reading that one.

Have you ever thought out the biological implications of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation? According to Catholic doctrine, during the Eucharist, Catholics devour the actual flesh of Jesus. This “practice” has gone on every day all over the world for thousands of years. Do the math and explain to me how the alchemy behind converting a wafer to flesh in inexhaustible quantities is compatible with biology (not to mention its odd homage to paganistic cannibalistic sacrifice).

[BuckeyeForever]

You wrote: “For, after the faithful buy the notion of cross species evolution as a physical paradigm created by God the next question will be, why is God even necessary, when the process has been declared and agreed to be one where no Creator is necessary. And there, my friends, the sound byte debate can legitimately and publicly declared to be over. It’s called a Trojan horse and it’s a famous strategy. Falling for a famous strategy is embarrassing.”
_____________________
My response: Damn. My phone has been ringing off the hook since you posted. It seems my fellow believers in macro-evolution noted, and called to alert me, that we (meaning my fellow believers in macro-evolution) have been found out.
Since the gig is up, then, I do indeed ask this question: Why IS God even necessary?

[dsc]

“a deity whose existence can never be proven”

I don’t believe that the thinking behind that premise is as rigorous as that generally demanded in scientific endeavors.

If there were an omnipotent God, so far above us in intelligence and puissance as to be able to create the universe, He would be able to demonstrate His existence to whom he pleased, while denying people the means necessary to prove His existence to other people.

That’s just a matter of logic, though. Not only *can* His existence be proven, it *has* been proven to many people now living. If one approaches the matter appropriately, one can discover many intelligent, educated, level-headed people to whom God has proven His existence.

Many would say that the inability of these people to prove God’s existence to third parties demonstrates the invalidity of the experiences they hold to be direct contact with God. A “scientific” experiment, you see, must be replicable. The problem with that argument is that God is not subject to scientific experiment. Contact is at His initiative only.

Still, no person is able to prove to another that his encounter with God was genuine.

Consider that as a logical problem. A schizophrenic cannot “prove” to others that he sees hallucinations, yet we accept that he does. On the other hand, when a credible source claims to have had an encounter with God, many will dismiss the evidence of that report on the grounds that...wait for it...it couldn’t have happened because God doesn’t exist.

Circular logic, anyone?

But wait, some might say, we have the evidence of *many* schizophrenics all reporting hallucinations, and their reported experiences are consistent in many ways. It is the combination of the number of reports with their consistency that is convincing.

And one can say the same thing of people who have encountered God. There are many, and their reports are consistent.

That, say the God-haters, is either because their experiences are hallucinatory, sharing the consistency of the schizophrenic experience, or fraudulent, and therefore deliberately consistent in fabrication.

However, sufficient investigation will reveal that these reports are numerous, consistent, *and* quite often involve elements that *could*not* have originated with the individual reporting the encounter.

And yet, this immense mass of evidence, spanning more than 2,000 years, is dismissed out of hand by the God-haters on the grounds that...here it is again...the evidence for God’s existence couldn’t possibly be valid because God doesn’t exist.

They say, “I don’t want to hear that God has proved his existence to thousands of people...though I do accept the reality of historical events for which far less evidence exists. I want some person to prove it directly to *me.* I’m not going to take anyone’s word for it that he had an encounter with God, any more than I would take their word for, say, the sequencing of the human genome or any of the thousands of other scientific facts that I have not seen for myself.”

The charge of dismissing arguments or evidence “out of hand” is often seen on the Internet, though robbed of much of its force by overuse.

However, most of the people who demand proof of God’s existence have, in fact, dismissed the very possibility of such evidence a priori, solely on the grounds that their conclusion precludes its existence.

As G. K. Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy, “If I am asked, as a purely intellectual question, why I believe in Christianity, I can only answer, “For the same reason that an intelligent agnostic disbelieves in Christianity.” I believe in it quite rationally upon the evidence. But the evidence in my case, as in that of the intelligent agnostic, is not really in this or that alleged demonstration; it is in an enormous accumulation of small but unanimous facts. The secularist is not to be blamed because his objections to Christianity are miscellaneous and even scrappy; it is precisely such scrappy evidence that does convince the mind. I mean that a man may well be less convinced of a philosophy from four books, than from one book, one battle, one landscape, and one old friend. The very fact that the things are of different kinds increases the importance of the fact that they all point to one conclusion. Now, the non-Christianity of the average educated man to-day is almost always, to do him justice, made up of these loose but living experiences. I can only say that my evidences for Christianity are of the same vivid but varied kind as his evidences against it. For when I look at these various anti-Christian truths, I simply discover that none of them are true.”

(Orthodoxy is available for free on line.)

[dsc]

“[Macro] Evolution does not prove there is no god, i.e. a creator of the universe.”

True, but there are many who hold that it does.

“If macro-evolution has occurred, however, it is contrary to the ridiculous fairy-tale myths of creation of the universe in the Bible”

What would you think if an ordinary, average third-grader began to denigrate special relativity on the grounds that he found it counter-intuitive? And did so, moreover, in a very unpleasant and scornful way?

Your statement demonstrates that your understanding of Christian theology is on a par with an ordinary, average third-grader’s understanding of special relativity. I’m sorry for the harshness of that statement. I make it not to denigrate, but to try and get my point across.

“Macro-evolution is therefore contradictory of the Bible, and Christianity in particular.”

Macro-evolution is contradictory of a child’s understanding of the Bible and Christianity. It conflicts in no way with theology at a level of sophistication suitable for adults...which I would venture to guess you have never encountered.

“However, macro-evolution certainly is not dependant upon the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe.”

Dependence is completely irrelevant. You have said nothing useful or pertinent there.

“To say that macro-evolution is itself a religion is not logical.”

That’s a bad sign. Did you really miss the difference between saying that macro-evolution is itself a religion and saying that the dogma that evolution disproves the existence of God is a religious proposition? Two very different matters.

[dsc]

You wrote: “Nothing in Catholic doctrine is incompatible with modern Biology.”
___________________________

“I about busted a gut reading that one. Have you ever thought out the biological implications of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation?”

There are none, obviously. There’s that child’s understanding of theology again.

Biology is only what it is because God holds it in existence with His will. He is not bound by the strictures that He Himself created. He is outside and above the natural laws to which we are subject. The transubstantiation is not a matter of biology; it is an act of the Creator of the Universe.

By the way, cannibalism is the devouring of a member of one’s own species. Are you God, that it would be cannibalism for you to devour God?

[BuckeyeForever]

I could spend all night commenting on the many nuances of your last post, but frankly, I don’t see the point of doing so. Your reference to agnostics and atheists as “God-haters” is more than just inaccurate — it shows a deep bias that reveals your lack of objectivity.

This comment of yours is telling: “If there were an omnipotent God, so far above us in intelligence and puissance as to be able to create the universe, He would be able to demonstrate His existence to whom he pleased, while denying people the means necessary to prove His existence to other people.” I have to concede you are right, in that as a last resort, a believer can always fall back on the “God can do anything he wants, and who are we to question the ‘mind’ of God?” Well, I do. I suggest to you that there is nothing rational about a supernatural entity that hides the ball except to a select few “special” (or “chosen”) people. Why would a supernatural entity that needs worshipping (any interest concept in and of itself, I hope you recognize) “hide” its existence to begin with, or reveal its existence to only a few members of its creation? It makes no sense, and this “secret club” stuff is one of the most ridiculous aspects of religious belief. Why in the hell would a supernatural being go to the trouble of hiding secret messages revealing “truths” in a Bible “code” when delivering tablets with “handwritten” instructions gets the point across so much more efficiently and effectively?
Then you wrote: “Not only *can* His existence be proven, it *has* been proven to many people now living. If one approaches the matter appropriately, one can discover many intelligent, educated, level-headed people to whom God has proven His existence.”
My response: Baloney. See above. Furthermore, God does not speak to people. Period. Except serial killers, apparently. Your point about schizophrenics proves MY point. People may believe they talk to God (they are kidding themselves) but people who actually hear back are psychotic. Maybe God has a special love for paranoid and schizophrenic people, but more likely, those folks are just imagining they hear God. The reason no one truly gets a clear and unambiguous message from God is not all that difficult to understand. It’s because there is nothing there except a deity man conjures in his own image.

[BuckeyeForever]

You wrote: “Biology is only what it is because God holds it in existence with His will. He is not bound by the strictures that He Himself created. He is outside and above the natural laws to which we are subject. The transubstantiation is not a matter of biology; it is an act of the Creator of the Universe.”
_________________
My response: Ah, thank you. So you concede that Catholic doctrine IS, in fact, incompatible with modern Biology. But you want a special pass for your doctrine because it belongs to the realm of “supernatural exceptions to the laws of science.” Where all things illogical and unscientific reside, I guess. I understand now. Thanks for conceding the point of my original post.

And on that last point, you wrote: “By the way, cannibalism is the devouring of a member of one’s own species. Are you God, that it would be cannibalism for you to devour God?”
________________
My response: Ahem, (the mythical person) Jesus appeared in the flesh, and died, and supposedly was resurrected in the flesh,no? And the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation states that the wafer is actually, physically changed into Jesus’s flesh during the Eucharist. That’s not cannibalism? And you didn’t address my point about the little conflict that poses with “modern Biology” as you call it, when you consider that the math involved in the fact that the Eucharist has been performed daily around the world for a couple thousand years. Let’s face it, it is as futile to try to reconcile biology (including evolutionary biology) with theology, as it is to reconcile alchemy with chemistry or astrology with cosmology.

[BuckeyeForever]

dsc:
in this latest post, you have finally resorted to the last line of defense I typically get from the Christian apologist, after all else fails. You threw out the old “you have a child’s view of religion, you don’t understand theology like I do” horse manure. It’s at this point, I always point out that I was raised as a Christian, confirmed as one after taking classes, attended and then taught Sunday school, attended and taught at church camp, studied comparative religion and philosophy of religion in college, read hundreds of books over several decades on religion and theology by Lewis, Russell, Kant, Kierkegaard, Spinoza, James, Freud, Hume, etc.etc. But alas, despite all that, you, oh wise one, diagnosed my disbelief as a result of a “child’s understanding of religion” based on what obviously is the result of my not truly having really read and understood the Bible as only you can. This pleases me, as I prefer your argument, nonsensical as it is, to the other “final resort” argument (that I must have an unhappy life to be such a “God hater” and tool of the Devil himself). I think it’s a good time for me to go to bed and put a cap on this particular thread. I wish you well, and hope all your religious fantasies come true.

[FormerLib]

You think it might be a complete lie?

What might be a complete lie?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Ben lives. I live. Why don’t you soak your head ?

[William Terrell]

Why IS God even necessary?

That's a question you have to answer for yourself, and you are responsible for the answer.

A hint might be, think of all the recent governments based on atheism, the condition of their people and their death toll.

[allmendream]

Nothing in transubstantiation assumes that the wafer LITERALLY becomes the flesh of Christ. In other words one could not take a DNA sample from it. The chemical composition does not change, just the spiritual significance of eating it changes. This is not a difficult concept.

[Mr. Lucky]

Detractors of the real Presence of Christ are unable to fathom the difference between the body of Christ and the body of mortal man.

[dsc]

“What might be a complete lie?”

That Stein contributed to and supports that vile scumbag.

[dsc]

“My response: Ah, thank you. So you concede that Catholic doctrine IS, in fact, incompatible with modern Biology.”

You seem unwilling to grasp the concepts involved. Nothing in Catholic doctrine contradicts any part of biology, nor does any biological fact contradict any part of Catholic doctrine. This is because biology deals with a part of the physical world, while theology deals with the spiritual.

You wish to demand that God be subject to the laws of biology, when He himself established those laws, which are as they are, and remain as they are, only because He wills it. God is not subject to the laws of biology; they are subject to Him.

“But you want a special pass for your doctrine because it belongs to the realm of “supernatural exceptions to the laws of science.”

There’s that child’s understanding again. I’m beginning to see that you do not wish to develop any part of an adult’s understanding, probably because it would be inconvenient to the shallow, puerile arguments you find so compelling.

You want a universe in which the laws of science are the ultimate authority, and all is subject to them. However, you do not live in such a universe.

“That’s not cannibalism?”

To a little child it seems so. To an adult with an adult’s understanding, no.

“And you didn’t address my point about the little conflict that poses with “modern Biology” as you call it, when you consider that the math involved in the fact that the Eucharist has been performed daily around the world for a couple thousand years.”

That’s not even a rational argument. There’s nothing to address, because it’s gibberish. Do you really imagine that a God who can create clusters of galaxies would have a problem with a bit of transubstantiation?

“Let’s face it, it is as futile to try to reconcile biology (including evolutionary biology) with theology”

It only seems so to you, because you insist on these ridiculous misrepresentations of theological principles.

“Your reference to agnostics and atheists as “God-haters” is more than just inaccurate — it shows a deep bias that reveals your lack of objectivity.”

Good grief, a person like you has the gall to mention objectivity? Truly, wonders never cease. The term “God-haters” is perfectly accurate, and shows a bias only toward the truth.

“Well, I do.”

That’s because you have no understanding of what you question—or rather, revile. You are like a third-grader shooting spitwads at special relativity.

“I suggest to you that there is nothing rational about a supernatural entity that hides the ball except to a select few “special” (or “chosen”) people.”

And I suggest to you that you are so far from understanding any of this that I will not be able to do much here.

You know, what’s really eating away at you is that you haven’t been one of the “special” (or “chosen”) people,” and you can’t stand the notion that others may have been preferred over you. And there again we encounter that child’s understanding, because the people to whom God reveals himself are not “special” (or “chosen”)” in the way you mean. If anything, they are entrants in the Special Olympics of spirituality, special in the sense that they need extra help.

Further, he doesn’t hide the ball. He merely allows the obdurate to deny the existence of the elephant in the living room.

“Why would a supernatural entity that needs worshipping”

And there’s that child’s understanding again. God doesn’t need your worship. You need Him.

“hide” its existence to begin with, or reveal its existence to only a few members of its creation?”

The world is a machine to turn us into something. For the machine to work, we must be free to accept good or evil, without undue coercion. That is why God is at the same time blatantly present and deniable.

“It makes no sense”

Ever read “Flatland?” You are a two dimensional consciousness trying to understand a multidimensional phenomenon. You insist on looking at it in a way that makes no sense. If you used right reason, you wouldn’t have that problem.

“Why in the hell would a supernatural being go to the trouble of hiding secret messages revealing “truths” in a Bible “code” when delivering tablets with “handwritten” instructions gets the point across so much more efficiently and effectively?”

No “Bible code” is any part of any recognized Christian denomination.

“My response: Baloney. See above.”

There is nothing above that remotely justifies your a priori denial of the testimony of (at the very least) tens of thousands of witnesses. You deny it solely because you have concluded that it is impossible. Circular reasoning.

“Furthermore, God does not speak to people. Period.”

Oh yes, my bitter little God-hater, He does. But you’ll never forgive Him for talking to others and not you, will you?

“Your point about schizophrenics proves MY point.”

Not even remotely. It is quite possible to distinguish between hallucination and a genuine personal revelation.

“The reason no one truly gets a clear and unambiguous message from God is not all that difficult to understand.”

So, we’re going to add factual error to lack of comprehension, are we? People very definitely do get clear and unambiguous messages from God. That is one key factor in evaluating their validity.

“in this latest post, you have finally resorted to the last line of defense I typically get from the Christian apologist, after all else fails.”

There’s no “finally.” I wrote those notes in one sitting. Further, the only thing that has failed is the attempt to reason with you on a subject pertaining to which you are unwilling to be rational.

“It’s at this point, I always point out that I was raised as a Christian, confirmed as one after taking classes, attended blah blah blah.”

I am reminded of the movie, “A Fish Called Wanda.”

Jamie Lee Curtis: “Oh, right. To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?”

Kevin Kline: “Apes don’t read philosophy.”

Curtis: “Yes, they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it. Now, let me correct you on a couple of things, okay? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not, ‘Every man for himself.’ And the London underground is not a political movement.”

I don’t care what courses you sat through or what pages of what books you turned. Your remarks demonstrate that you didn’t understand what was placed before you.

“But alas, despite all that, you, oh wise one, diagnosed my disbelief as a result of a “child’s understanding of religion” based on what obviously is the result of my not truly having really read and understood the Bible as only you can.”

Trying to misrepresent 2,000 years of the intellectual work product of the best minds in Western Civilization as merely a matter of what I can do is so lame as to be beneath contempt. You haven’t understood the Bible as any reasonably intelligent adult could be expected to do, if he made a sincere effort.

“that I must have an unhappy life to be such a “God hater” and tool of the Devil himself”

Do you imagine yourself happy? You sound bitter and stunted.

[disrgr]

It sounds to me as though you believe that any reading of xtian texts that does not jibe with your own is childish. It is quite possible to read the texts and come to the conclusion that they are not what they purport to be, nor what xtian dogma holds them out to be. That is not a childish conclusion, nor is it a misapprehension. It is simply a position that is not based on credulity. Indeed, one could even say that it is the person deriding others as being immature who is in fact behaving childishly.