"Ben Stein is no friend of mine!"
He has chosen to tackle an issue that is long over due.
"Intelligent design," takes both creationism and evolution into consideration and blends them into a congruent theory. "Intelligent design," teaches that evolution did happen, but it was guided by a higher source then just happenstance. It explains that God must have guided evolution to eventually lead to where we are now, or where we will be eventually in the future.
Didn’t he recently come out in support of Al Franken?
I’m going to wait to see it before I pass judgment.
Yes, I know, I know! That’s dangerous thinking around here but I’m going for it.
Ben Stein lied in order to secure interviews for his new movie. Yet another “godly” hypocrite. Stein and his fellow bunch of creationist hucksters would best be advised to review Job 27:8.
The majority of the members of the scientific community has scoffed at the other two theories of creationism.....”
What about the third theory? Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Check it out: http://www.venganza.org/
Intelligent design has been determined to be religion in disguise by a U.S. Federal District Court, and has been determined not to be science by the overwhelming majority (probably 99.5%+) of the relevant scientific community.
"Ben Stein is no friend of mine!"
Oh those eeeeeevil scientific community who “scoffed”. Where does ‘scoff’ stand on the objectivity meter as far as editorial language? And Creationism is not a Scientific theory it is a religious belief; intelligent design is a postulate or hypothesis at best, and its main claim was only advanced recently, so it would be hard to ‘scoff’ at it for decades when it was only 11 years ago.
Also I believe the book he needs to reference in his article is “Descent of Man” not “Origin of Species”, but I guess a proper citation might be too much to expect from the mental giant who penned what is quoted above.
‘This theory has been debated for years by religious’??? Religious what? He doesn’t say. And are theories decided by debate? ‘Religious’ and ‘Scientists’ conflated as if the majority of Scientists were not religious.
What a hack writer.
I have a copy of "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, one of several volumes of works by various writers, included in a very old set of "The Harvard Classics".
The Darwin work is labeled as such: First Edition, November 24th, 1859; Sixth Edition, January, 1872; Copyright, 1909 By P. F. Collier & Son.
The Introduction is written by Darwin and here is a sentence from that introduction, "In the last chapter I shall give a brief recapitulation of the whole work, and a few concluding remarks." The last chapter is Chapter XV.
Here is the last sentence written by Darwin, from the final chapter (Chapter XV) of the "The Origin of Species"............
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
ANSWER: If Poupard's definition of Intelligent Design is correct, ('"Intelligent design," takes both creationism and evolution into consideration and blends them into a congruent theory. "Intelligent design," teaches that evolution did happen, but it was guided by a higher source then just happenstance. It explains that God must have guided evolution to eventually lead to where we are now, or where we will be eventually in the future.') then I say yes, Charles Darwin was a proponent of Intelligent Design, using Darwin's own words as proof.............this should drive the leftists up......the......wall, heh, heh, heh.
:}
Stein is a neat guy, but financial genius he is not, though he discusses finance a whole bunch. Recently he stated that value is better than growth, because it performs better over time. Duh, what a contra signal...
Ok Ben, go back to 2/00 and tell me how many growth funds you can find that have 1,3,5,10,20 yr track records greater than 20%? ALL OF THEM.... Growth died, value took off, and now the disparity is the other way.
Oh geez, just forget it...
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_not_Great:_How_Religion_Poisons_Everything
If you doubt the latter part of the title, read some of the posts on this thread.
Ben is an enigma.