Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins (Dawkins admits possibility of ID, Just Not God).

Townhall ^ | April 21, 2008 | Dinesh D'Souza

[joseph20]

"Life is so amazingly and utterly complex and almost and even possibly nearly infatestimally minute in it's organizational levels that this "alien" would have to be God in order to perform it."

One should not assume that the aliens created life in the advanced stages that we see on Earth in the present day.

It's plausible that the aliens engineered the original DNA itself, and let nature take it's course with the rest. All of the "amazing and utter complexity" that we see today may be a result of natural processes that have occurred over billions of years.

[antiRepublicrat]

God, is God, He was, is, and always will be.

So is the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH). Be careful with your blasphemy in following the Purple Oyster of Doom or you may find yourself shoveling Her stables for the rest of eternity.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? "

It means that atheist Darwinians can still fornicate or masturbate without moral anxiety if there is a lizard god from outer space. And that they are comfortable with the idea of ET Reptilian ancestry a la the Nephalim, minus the Judaeo-Christian the Bible.

Let's call this the ancient astronaut ID hypothesis. Maybe there's a sequel there - the esoteric, New Age, and ET theories of crackpot Darwinian atheists.

[keats5]

You asked: “Is that the way science should be approached, and is Stein film contributing to getting people to view the issues objectively or exacerbating the problem?”

My reply: I don't know. However, until we admit that people from both sides interpret science through their own world views, we will never get anywhere. That is why philosophy used to be considered together with science, and was itself considered a science. I'm beginning to think that, in this fallen world, this issue will never get to the point that we have a clear consensus.

The evos insist that believers rule out the possibility of a designer, and define science in a way that does just that. The believers insist that science be broadened to consider things beyond the material world. For the most part, people chose one side or the other.

I have. I'm a believer. I certainly understand the other point of view, but it is one which I do not adopt, nor do I want it forced upon my children as the one and only possible viewpoint. I would hope we could we focus on teaching our children the 99.9% of science that has nothing to do with origins, and place the other philosophically based issues about origin in a class which teaches both sides (a philosophy of science type course.)

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

The religious claims of atheist Darwinists (that there is no God) cannot be established by the scientific method. The proper term for this is not "science" per se but scientism. Those advocating this appear not to understand what they are doing philosophically.

[ConservativeDude]

He simply admitted the hypothetical possiblity, in a brainstorming sort of way. This sort of blue sky talk is normal among scientists.”

Unless of course you call that hypothetical possibility “intelligent design” then scientists on the movie and elsewhere most definitely admit it as a possibility, hypothetical or otherwise. Hence the silliness of Dawkins during the interview.

I saw the movie. This was a jaw-dropping moment. Dawkins looks like an idiot who wouldn’t know how to handle philosopohy 101.

[keats5]

Some people follow Dawkins. I have, because my husband and I take a special interest in this issue. Thus, we were aware of his vehement hatred of anything religious.

However, others who may not know much about this issue may have just come to check out the new Ben Stein anti-evolutionist movie. They may not have been that interested in science, but perhaps have heard about the movie from church friends or maybe they simply like Ben Stein. His popularity may have brought in a whole new crowd.

[MrB]

Dawkins looked like a fearful, tiny little man.

Probably because he didn’t have the “upper hand” where he could intimidate and bully.

Mr. Dawkins, I have a question - so, these aliens, why did they seed the Earth with some single celled critters since they obviously had more evolutionarily advanced critters to place here?

[MrB]

He said they themselves were highly evolved... so they must have come from... well... dunno.

Considering the age of the universe, the age of second generation stars that produced the heavier elements, and the length of time that it takes to “evolve” a technological species... well, there isn’t time for 2 such occurrences.

[ConservativeDude]

then scientists on the movie and elsewhere most definitely admit it as a possibility, hypothetical or otherwise”

should be, “then scientists on the movie and elsewhere most definitely DO NOY admit it as a possibility, hypothetical or otherwise”

[MrB]

Evolution gave the atheists the intellectual cover they need to justify their religion.

But why do they have to be so arrogant? Defense mechanism?

[Paradox]

The bible makes no mention of the large intestines, but we are certainly all full of cr*p...

Let me see, " Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

So, what person is created without intestines?

Are you saying that God is full of cr*p?

[MrB]

Dawkins is not very bright. Seriously. He's just not that intelligent.

Ah, but he DOES know how to engage in

"Proof by arrogant condescension"

that you see most atheists and liberals use as a matter of course.

[Non-Sequitur]

And, who created the aliens?

How can you reconcile aliens with the Bible? If God created man in his image then who created aliens? A different God?

[MrB]

new Ben Stein anti-evolutionist movie

Not necessarily an accurate representation of Stein's point. The point is that academics and "big science" use bullying tactics to "win" their argument, instead of openly engaging all possible directions their observations could take them.

Same tactics that are used to keep conservative ideology stifled in academia.

[tacticalogic]

I don't see it as "the evos" wanting believers to rule out the possibility of a designer, but of having them realize that because the methodology they use to test ToE simply won't work on ID. There is no way to test it, and in an empirical system no way to give it "equal consideration" by any objective standard.

If they are to pursue scientific inquiry of the history of life on Earth from an assumption of intelligent design, how does the inquiry proceed? How do they test for intelligent design? If there's no way to test it, what is there for them to do?

[tacticalogic]

The point is that academics and "big science" use bullying tactics to "win" their argument, instead of openly engaging all possible directions their observations could take them.

What direction do you expect "observations" based on an assumption of intelligent design to take them? How do you propose testing the evidence to prove or disprove that it was intelligently designed?

[Mr. Lucky]

The question of whether an object or occurrence was the result of intelligent design or random chance arises in any number of other areas of inquiry.

[keats5]

True. I overstated.

[MrB]

This is the “intelligent design is not science” argument which conveniently ignores the fact that the original assumption of intelligent creation was what allowed modern scientific discovery to be pursued.