Ben Stein's Expelled

Email Print posted by KenTX 04/28/2008 01:25:57 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
I went to see the movie, this weekend. I must admit that I was more than skeptical since I’m highly ambivalent on the subject of religion, and I have absolutely no time for creationism, or any other form of mythology.

But I left the movie with much more interest in the study of Intelligent Design.

The movie asks simple questions such as: How can Darwin explain the incredible leap from primordial mud to a single living cell? I was surprised that proponents of Intelligent Design seem to readily accept theories of natural selection and mutation and evolution. But their concern is that these theories don’t explain the origin of life on earth.

The climactic scene was the polite sit down and genteel exchange between Ben Stein and the world’s leading detractor of Intelligent Design, the world famous scientist and outspoken atheist, Richard Dawkins.

I would appreciate it very much if someone can help me find a YouTube clip of the exchange between Dawkins and Stein. There are plenty of clips where people describe the exchange, but I think they keep pulling down the actual movie clip at the insistence of the producers.

When I watched the movie, I heard Dawkins say that nobody knows how life was formed on earth, and that the origin of life could well have been alien intervention. I want to see the clip again, to see if the exchange was doctored, or otherwise edited to make Dawkins look like the complete idiot that he appeared in the film.

I reiterate that I am not a religious person, and I have no interest in religion. But when I consider that Einstein was convinced in the existence of a Prime Mover, or that the entire Universe likely sprang forth from a single primeval atom, or that there are as many as eleven dimensions in the Universe, and as a result, there are virtually an infinite number of forces and events occurring within arm’s length that cannot be perceived or measured by humans, or that a cell is almost infinitely complex, I realize there is much more to life than meets the eye.
< Should the U.S. Senate recognize the Armenian genocide? | Is This Article Useful? >
 Display:
Ben Stein's Expelled | 72 comments (72 topical, 0 hidden)
Intelligent design in a nutshell (none / 0)
If there were any intelligence behind the design, why on earth are testicles on the outside?

by MedfordTim on 04/28/2008 03:34:05 AM EST

that's easy (none / 0)
How else could you teabag somebody?

by KenTX on 04/28/2008 06:28:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Use Earl Grey? (none / 0)
Hat tip to da funny man!

by MedfordTim on 04/28/2008 10:51:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Laurel and Hardy (none / 0)
Credit where credit is due. Ken that was hilarious. Making me think he set you up like he is your straight man. Tim, did you get in on that one with him?

by tiggerporn on 04/28/2008 06:37:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
blue balled monkeys and cloned gap employees (none / 0)
Actually though in truth, that is the entire reason FOR the argument, not against it. You see most life in the universe is female, or operates in a female, that is to say non-sexual reproductive manner. That is the reason Hil and all the lezbots are so scary, we're nearly at the human cloning stage, it is actually like reverting to the natural order to have hive like societies where women would just clone each other, why even bother with the men. But the point is, all life starts out in the womb as female, and the ovaries, the eggs, they ARE on the inside, that is where they are SUPPOSED to be. But we, men, really we are sort of a mutation. And the cajones have to be on the outside because they need to be a different temperature. Viva la difference. La vast difference. And the reason they need to be a different temperature is to allow for the mutations.

Men in fact are becoming less male with every generation. We can joke about how McCain is out of touch and a member of the he man's women haters club
and how Barack is a metrosexual (too vain, not in touch with working class values) but on an epoch scale measured in eons, it is true. With every generation, men lose traits from their 23rd y chromosone, the thing that makes us male. But this is a fact of sexual reproduction, the reason for our mutation to becoming human in the first place. It happened with enough generations of monkeys and apes and chimps that we eventually became human.

So that is one reason in all the futuristic movies you see people in these sterile all white environs with asexual androgynous men with shaved heads and effeminate characteristics (well in some of the futuristic movies at least, not one with Arnie). It is because if we mutate anymore, we will cease being human (homo sapien and become some new species, homo whatevericus).

But if we didn't have the balzack on de outside, we wouldn't mutate, but then, well, duh, we wouldn't be men for one thing, but wouldn't have ever gotten to be humans in the first place.

Of course there are a lot of different ways people could mutate in the future though. If you look at nature a lot of it is arbitrary. How bout those big blue balled monkeys.

But you remember planet of the apes right, the old series from the 70's, it all started so innocently, first they used the apes to clean, then they get smart, they revolt, blah blah blah. But it always starts so innocently. So of course, Hillary becomes president. Then we get approval for cloning human embreyos for stem cell research. Then, next thing you know they are cloning GAP employees, they've got estrogen in the drinking water, and that snip snip surgery isn't just for Fido anymore. Scary thought.

Viva Obama!

by tiggerporn on 04/28/2008 06:54:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nothing personal... (none / 0)
That's one of them big 6-story earth movers full of manure! Funny, though...

Either the design was "intelligent" or it was "ridiculously inadequate" - and I say it's the latter. Opposable thumbs are great and all, but what good are they if you can't scratch your own back?

The universe may be chock full if patterns and designs but little of it shows intelligence in the planning.

by MedfordTim on 04/28/2008 10:48:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
rocket science (none / 0)
God doesn't play dice with the universe, but did Einstein play craps?

by tiggerporn on 04/28/2008 06:56:37 AM EST

Some links (none / 0)

 

Intelligent Design is not  a theory, it is a crutch. It is veiled Creationism.

 

A couple of links for interested readers to peruse:

TalkDesign

TalkOrigins FAQ 

Second TalkOrigins FAQ 

by Lusmu on 04/28/2008 07:57:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hi diddly ho (none / 0)
Well, Lord, that some mighty fine Intelligent Design. Who am I to question the work of the almighty?!?

Mighty Fine

Jabby, jabby, jab, jab, jabby.

A link that it would probably be better not to pursue: cajones.

Peruse it at your leisure, but just remember.

by tiggerporn on 04/28/2008 08:53:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's the thing. (none / 0)
Richard Dawkins, being an actual scientist, and thinking he was in a legitimate interview, properly states that all  answers are not known and future research will answer some of these questions and then result in new questions. That is what science does. What Intelligent Design has not done up to this point is predict the result of an experiment based on their view of the universe and have that prediction verified by published and peer-reviewed results. Until this happens, they are not doing "science" and therefore cannot be taught as "science". To state it explicitly, they have decided what the answer is and are fitting in the data to agree with that answer the best they can. Anyone clever can do that.

by MayorHardin on 04/28/2008 12:29:27 PM EST

Link (none / 0)
http://www.expelledexposed. com/ has brief as well as more involved discussions where that is warranted about the movie and ID.

by MayorHardin on 04/28/2008 01:42:19 PM EST

very quickly (none / 0)

A good post Tx. 

The fact that "intelligent designers" readily accept natural selection as a mechanism for evolution does not make them credible witnesses of the origin of life (since they are asserting an origin). An aside to this statement is that biologists don't assert anything about the origin, they investigate it using experimentation. Intelligent designers by contrast are drawing a line in the sand and saying "okay, we accept all that but.. can we have our GOD here?", so the previous commenter that said this is a crutch for creationism hit the nail on the head.

I don't know what Dawkins said to Mr. Stein, but I'd be curious. Its not my area of expertise, but I'm an evolution hobbyist and one of the fields I've followed a little bit on the side is that concerning the origin of life. It is an active area research and there has been a lot of theoretical work about how life could have evolved in a pre-cellular millieu. One school of thought holds that the rules of natural selection break down in the precellular world, where the means of genetic exchange and genetic isolation are different (not non-existent, just different).

Of course it should be obvious that this whole question is a red herring, since Darwin could not look beyond the precellular world: he didn't know what cells were. Nevertheless, it is interesting to think about. It is much more enriching to think about mechanisms and experiments than to invoke a creator in the way that Intelligent Designers do, since that invocation effectively ends the conversation. Don't you think? 

 

by hazmat on 04/28/2008 02:59:32 PM EST

Dawkins Responds (none / 0)

In addition to MayorHardin's link, I'll add Richard Dawkins' response to his part in Expelled...

Gods and Earthlings 

by mr science on 04/28/2008 03:44:56 PM EST

Dawkins is digging desperately. (none / 0)
I don’t blame him. He was made to look mighty foolish in the movie.

He insists that God did not create the heavens or life on earth, because it would be “statisitically improbable”. Never mind that he offers no plausible explanation for the origin of life or the origin of the universe.
  
“Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable. And statistically improbable things don't just happen spontaneously by chance without an explanation trail. A creator god who had always existed would be far more improbable still. In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process, and it is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things.”

The multiverse is infinite in size. There are infinite force vectors acting within the multiverse. An infinite multiverse, with infinite forces yields infinite possibilities. All things are possible within the infinite multiverse.

Therefore, a "creator god" that was the prime mover in the creation of an infinite, evolving multiverse from a single primeval atom, and the prime mover in the creation of evolving life forms from a small and infintely complex single cell is not only probable, but an absolute certainty.

Mythology is a waste of time practiced by feeble minds. Science will prove the existence of God.  Welcome to the Church of KenTX.

by KenTX on 04/28/2008 06:36:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll accept this explanation (none / 0)

but it's still not science.

Science may prove the existence of god, but it won't be the God of the bible, because that god is immeasurable, and science relies on measurements. It is for the same reason that science will not prove the non-existence God either.

Also, I have no problem with anyone believing this way. It shouldn't be taught in a science classroom, because it isn't science, but anyway it's an unanswerable question. Once you've conceded that you believe in evolution, the question of an ultimate creator is largely irrelevant. We can ignore it and get on about the business curing cancer. So KenTx, if that's what you believe, as Cenk would say...

God Bless. Go forward. 

by hazmat on 04/28/2008 06:55:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
embrace the universe (none / 0)
"It shouldn't be taught in a science classroom, because it isn't science, but anyway it's an unanswerable question."

The origin of the Universe should be taught in the classroom. After you learn that the entire Universe was once smaller than a single atom, you realize how limited your brain is.

The origin of life on earth should be taught in the classroom. After you learn that the cell is the basic building block of all life, yet it is infinitely complex, you must question how a cell sprang forth from primordial mud.

The number of immeasurable dimensions should be taught in the classroom. After you learn there are infinite forces and actions occuring around your very being that cannot be perceived or measured, it will make you understand that you don't have the first clue what is going on.

You are afraid of difficult questions. You are afraid of admitting to a weak, limited, feeble mind. 

by KenTX on 04/28/2008 07:51:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
whether there is a creator (none / 0)

is not a difficult question. just an irrelevant one.

As to what should be taught in the classroom, lets work on getting more than 20% of high schoolers to be able to read, then we'll work on the multidimensional bullshit. 

by hazmat on 04/28/2008 08:23:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTroll (none / 0)
doesnt have a problem at all proving that he has a weak limited feeble mind.

by Chinese Democracy on 04/29/2008 01:32:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Calling all atheists! (none / 0)
Please post a photo of yourself. We are conducting a "scientific study".

I used to refer to myself as an "atheist". But then, I became more attractive and more intelligent.

Thank you for your assitance.

Your Friend,
KenTX


by KenTX on 04/29/2008 08:10:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
YouTube challenge (none / 0)

Normally I wouldn't dignify such a base comment with a response, but for this I'll make an exception.

Warmest regards,
mr science 

by mr science on 04/29/2008 08:38:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll give you a few examples. (none / 0)
Because those who qualify as genius non-atheists are far too numerous to count.

Your little YouTube clip listed Thomas Alva Edison as an atheist.  This surprised me, because of all the guys on your extremely small list, he was really smart.

So I looked it up, and sure enough, you and your clip are full of Shiite. Looks like Edison was a scientific deist who believed in “Intelligent Design”.

Tough luck for you. Now if I researched your other scientists, I might find similar misreporting, but why bother? Those guys are a bunch of pygmies.

Let’s look for some really BIG names of science.
Albert Einstein
Isaac Newton
Michael Faraday
Louis Pasteur
Stephen Hawking

Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. NEXT!
punked and pawned

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 09:54:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Count me in! (none / 0)
If this is your definition of being a believer in "god" then count me in!

From one of your links:

"Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations"

by alphasigmookie on 04/29/2008 10:36:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
more distortions (none / 0)

Often quotes by leading scientists using the word "god" have been famously taken out of context. For example quotes by Einstein using "god" as a word to describe his awe inspiring appreciation of the mysteries of the cosmos. Below is a response he gave to having his words distorted.

Albert Einstein:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Thomas Edison:

I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. [Thomas Alva Edison, Columbian Magazine]

My mind is incapable of conceiving such a thing as a soul. I may be in error, and man may have a soul; but I simply do not believe it. [Thomas Edison, Do We Live Again?]

There aren't many deists left anymore because of all that we have learned in the fields of biology, physics, cosmology, etc. In 1998 a study showed that 7% of the National Academy of Scientists expressed personal belief in God.

In the interest of brevity the entire NAS was not included in the YouTube clip.

It's safe to say the deists of yesteryear would be atheists and agnostics (both nonbelievers) today. Of course Isaac Newton lived before the publication of The Origin of Species so its fair to give him a pass, although he had a puzzling obsession with alchemy. 

by mr science on 04/29/2008 10:50:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Words of Thomas Alva Edison (none / 0)
"You have misunderstood the whole article, because you jumped to the conclusion that it denies the existence of God. There is no such denial, what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter. All the article states is that it is doubtful in my opinion if our intelligence or soul or whatever one may call it lives hereafter as an entity or disperses back again from whence it came, scattered amongst the cells of which we are made."

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 11:47:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Words of Albert Einstein (none / 0)
Count Kessler once said to him, "Professor! I hear that you are deeply religious." Calmly and with great dignity, Einstein replied, "Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious." 

"By way of the understanding he [the scientist] achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind towards the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

"You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own . . . .His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 11:53:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
see above quote (none / 0)
It's the misrepresentation of quotes like this that caused Einstein to make the statement I quoted above. How do you reconcile such a definitive statement like that with the vague spiritualism and allegory in this quote? Even Richard Dawkins has said he believes in the interpretation of the "natural law" take on "god" that Einstein spoke of.

by mr science on 04/30/2008 12:22:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Einstein's words (none / 0)
speak for themselves. I invite you to embrace them.

There are numerous essays written on the subject of Einstein and God.

Why are you having so much difficulty dealing with Einstein's view of the Universe? Are you bothered that the smartest man who ever lived was not an atheist?

I'm sorry.

by KenTX on 04/30/2008 12:32:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
ARG! (none / 0)

READ MY TYPING! I have no problem with Einstein's view of the universe. These arguments you make are very common and I'm quite used to them.

You're just trying to tire me out now. I'm done here. Thanks for a spirited debate.

by mr science on 04/30/2008 12:37:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Deep Thoughts (none / 0)

So a few really smart people and a rich guy who made a movie believe there is a God. They cant explain how life formed on earth without divine intervention. ( divine for lack of a better term).

You have to admit, that's pretty arrogant of them. If really smart people cant figure it out then , at least in there minds, there must be a God , some unfathomable  divine force, right?

Now that makes you think there may be a God. After all, a bunch of really smart people seem to think so.

Sorry, buddy, going with the flow won't make you rich...or infer that your smart.

 



by MRFred on 04/30/2008 01:27:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why do you believe in God? (none / 0)
Because you're hoping that rich people will be punished in eternity?

It's time for Mr Fred to tell us about the wonders of the universe. After all, you consider yourself a smart person.

by KenTX on 04/30/2008 01:37:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Father, Son and a Good Annuity (none / 0)

 

Because you're hoping that rich people will be punished in eternity?

That's not fair Ken. I have never advocated punishment for the rich, the poor or anyone else. What I have always advocated is the realization of a statement you made a while back:

We are all in this together. KenTx

The "wonders of the universe " are there for all to see, you don't need me to tell you. If you cant see it, respectfully, that's your problem.

However, it's telling that when discussing the wonders of the universe your conversation immediate turns to wealth.

by MRFred on 04/30/2008 02:05:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
great! (none / 0)
I'm in total agreement. "God" in the poetic sense. "God" being used as another word for "nature" is exactly what my point was. It's the supernatural claims made about God, the religious ones, that atheists don't believe in.

by mr science on 04/30/2008 12:15:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
statistically improbable (none / 0)

"He insists that God did not create the heavens or life on earth..."

Dawkins insists no such thing (heavens?!?). Hence the term "statistically improbable".

 "...he offers no plausible explanation for the origin of life or the origin of the universe."

The origin of life is an open question. The origin of the universe can be traced back to the "big bang". I'm no physicist, but my understanding is that there is no "before" the big bang because there was no time until the big bang. If the big bang was created by an Intelligent Designer then He left no evidence. Even if you do believe there was an ID, you have no explanation for who/what designed the designer. It's an infinite regress. No logical explanation, no evidence and statistically improbable. Not much to go on...

As for the "Church of KenTX"... maybe you and Tom Cruise can hash it out.

by mr science on 04/28/2008 07:31:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
WTF??? (none / 0)
"Therefore, a "creator god" that was the prime mover in the creation of an infinite, evolving multiverse from a single primeval atom, and the prime mover in the creation of evolving life forms from a small and infintely complex single cell is not only probable, but an absolute certainty."

You are officially insane (welcome to the club, even if a different wing). There is no "certainty" about your idiotic "big guy in the sky" - if anything, all evidence points against any "god", let alone intelligent design.

You Righties have got to stop confusing "intricate" with "intelligent." Spiders weave intricate webs; that doesn't make them a god. Get used to it. Take your human ego out of the equation and glory in the random chaos that is the universe.

by MedfordTim on 04/28/2008 07:51:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tim, (none / 0)
there is more to life than eating Big Macs, taking crap s, dying from clogged arteries, and then becoming worm food.

I'll work with you on these issues.

Your Friend,
KenTX

by KenTX on 04/28/2008 07:57:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No, there really isn't. (none / 0)
That's all there is. You aren't, you are, then you aren't again. Nothing intelligent about it.

by MedfordTim on 04/28/2008 08:20:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Nothing intelligent about it." (none / 0)
If you take that point of view, then you're correct, there is nothing intelligent about it.

Conservatives believe in working hard in this life to make our ancestors and descendants proud of us, because we all meet up again in other dimensions.

True of Buddhists. True of Mormons. True of Catholics. True of Baptists.

Liberals, by contrast, are only concerned with the moment.

by KenTX on 04/28/2008 08:31:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Also nothing "liberal" about it. (none / 0)
It's called realism. What you describe is "religion." (Another name for "fairy tales")

by MedfordTim on 04/28/2008 09:29:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hold on Tim (none / 0)
I could be down with a spider god.

by ProfRich on 04/28/2008 08:50:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Remember LOTR (none / 0)
and what happened to Leo G Carrol in TARANTULA!!

At least spiders are more honest about sucking the life out of you...

by MedfordTim on 04/28/2008 09:31:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
On Dawkins' quote (none / 0)

He [Dawkins] insists that God did not create the heavens or life on earth, because it would be “statisitically improbable”. Never mind that he offers no plausible explanation for the origin of life or the origin of the universe.

Now, I have to note that I haven't seen the movie but this quote sounds like an answer to the ID fallacy. Could it be one of the quote mined or heavily edited examples from Dawkins?

ID proponents claim that there are features and organelles, etc. in living things that cannot have come about through evolution. That it is statistically impossible that they were formed through natural selection.

It sounds to me that Dawkins attempted to turn the tables on ID in this instance. That G/god itself would be a statistically impossible being if the ID "rules" (which have a lot in common with moving goal posts) were applied, as they should be, if ID is to be considered as a valid proposition.

As for the origins of life or the universe, these are separate issues from evolution. Evolution is a scientifically proven fact no matter how the universe or life itself came about.

Both abiogenesis (the birth of life) and the Big Bang are  studied scientifically, but their relevance to evolution itself is merely tangential.

Until ID or creationism can produce anything that can withstand scientific scrutiny they should be kept out of the class room.

by Lusmu on 04/29/2008 10:59:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Did you say "tangential"? (none / 0)
That's Twba's favorite word!

Coincidence?

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 05:35:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Coincidence? (none / 0)
Yes. Did you have something to say on the matter?

by Lusmu on 04/29/2008 07:09:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know what "Twba" stands for. (none / 0)
What does "Lusmu" stand for?

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 07:56:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll take that as an admission, (none / 0)
you don't have anything to say about evolution or IDiocy.

by Lusmu on 04/30/2008 12:43:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oy... (none / 0)

your over thinking this.

So how can Darwin explain the incredible leap from primordial mud to a single living cell? Dude, its not the leap...its the hang time.

It's simple really,

 

Unintelligent Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unintelligent Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Design 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unintelligent Design 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Unintelligent Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unintelligent Design 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Some things just don't make sense any other way.

 

 

 

by MRFred on 04/29/2008 12:00:23 AM EST

designer genes (none / 0)
It happened when the first bacterium put on a pair of Levi's that separated it's butt cheeks.

by mr science on 04/29/2008 12:30:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
fred (none / 0)
you fucking rock for this post

by hazmat on 04/29/2008 12:33:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
From the primordial mud (none / 0)
On potentially promising theory on the origin of life is autocatalytic sets.  Some very smart people in the area of complex systems are working on this theory although it has yet to be replicated in a lab. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Autocatalytic_reactions_a nd_order_creation

by alphasigmookie on 04/29/2008 12:52:23 AM EST

that movie is a joke (none / 0)
As is anyone who thinks it has any merit beyond putting the final nail in the coffin ben stein's sad career.

by ynp7 on 04/29/2008 12:58:25 AM EST

What you don't know about Ben Stein (none / 1)
Ben Stein makes more money in one hour than you will ever make in your pathetic life. He has written many books explaining how he got rich. He is paid big money just to give speeches. His entire life is a success story.

By the way, I'd be willing to bet you never saw the movie.

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 06:45:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
All in the interpretation (none / 0)

If by "got rich" you mean "was born rich"

If by success story you mean born with money and influence and now has money and inflence I guess I can agree. 

These conservatives kill me. 

by ProfRich on 04/29/2008 09:28:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How Ben got rich. (none / 0)
He got Rich by earning a lot of money, and then managing it well.

If you watch the business shows, you already know how smart he is.

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 10:41:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 0)

He started with a lot of money.

You might could call that "how Ben got richer" but honestly going from rich to richer doesn't seem to be that much of a trick.

George Bush did it and he is a complete moron. 

by ProfRich on 04/29/2008 10:44:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cognitive dissonance: START (none / 0)

Regardless of how Ben Stein got rich, he supports a 3.5% tax increase for himself and his fellow richies.

Ken's world just keeps getting more and more complicated. 

by OneHitKill on 04/29/2008 09:05:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Entertaining theory on the origin of the universe (none / 0)
One off the wall theory that I've developed (probably stolen from others) is that "god" is an emergent property of the universe.  This all assumes that the universe goes from big bang to heat death and then collapses back under the force of gravity into another big bang (universe is infinite and not finite in time).

The universe is designed from the beginning to create life.  Life is designed to evolve from simple chemcial structures to advanced and intelligent beings.  These beings invent a computer that can learn and influence the world.  Over time the computer grows exponentially in intelligence and power until it is indistinguishable from god.  Down the road as the universe collapses in on itself in preparation for the next cycle, the computer/god influences the initial conditions for the next cycle to ensure its emergence, likely improving upon the previous cycle. 

Thus the universe evolves over time to ensure perfect conditions for the emergence of "god" and "god" is continuously improved with each cycle.  Based upon the imperfections in the current design, I'd say god has some improvments to make after this cycle. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/29/2008 01:07:56 AM EST

interesting but... (none / 0)

The universe is designed from the beginning to create life.

The flaw in your hypothosis is in assuming the beginning was "designed" intelligently. That brings us back to square one. 

BTW, Dawkins brings up the continuously expanding and contracting universe hypothesis in The God Delusion. It posits successive universes would eventually produce conditions at random that could give rise to life.

by mr science on 04/29/2008 01:26:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
poorly described (none / 0)
sorry what i was meaning is that because some previous universe acheived a state where intelligence emmerged, that intelligence helped "design" the next interation of the universe.  Thus the previous "god" died at the big bang (or the previous big crunch) but influenced the initial conditions of the current universe to ensure that he or someone similar to him would emmerge in this itteration. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/29/2008 02:53:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
evidence (none / 0)
There would be some evidence of tampering. Our universe, for example, has no evidence and shows what you would expect to find in the absence of an intelligent designer. If it could somehow happen in a way that left no evidence, then you have devised another scenario that is circular and unfalsifiable. The successive expanding and collapsing universe hypothisis is interesting though.

by mr science on 04/29/2008 11:35:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
determinism (none / 0)
There is no "tampering" as with a traditional god.  The tampering would have occured before the big bang.  If you have ever dealt with differential equations you know the importance of initial conditions. 

If a system is complex enough (like all the laws of physics), depending upon the initial conditions, the system can follow an infinite number of trajectories.  However, each set of initial conditions maps to its own unique trajectory.  Thus if you can figure out this relationship, you can pick a set of initial conditions that lead to a desired outcome.  If something were intelligent enough to be able to do these calculations, it would not be a far cry to assume that it would be able to change the locations of a few atoms to acheive the desired initial conditions for the big bang. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/29/2008 01:53:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
God or "god" (none / 0)
OK, maybe it is plausible as a hypothetical, I really don't know. In any event, let's not get off the original issue. The IDers may feign interest in "god-like" alien intelligence, but they have been shown to be dishonest about their intentions. Intelligent Design is a front for religion. It is psuedoscience trying to create the false impression of scientific debate regarding evolution where this is no debate. I'm sure we're in agreement on this point.

by mr science on 04/29/2008 04:13:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I saw the movie. (none / 0)
"It is psuedoscience trying to create the false impression of scientific debate regarding evolution where this is no debate."

The ID scientists weren't debating the concepts of Darwin, evolution, or natural selection. They were focussed on the origin of life on earth. These questions are not addressed by natural selection.

"Intelligent Design" is merely a curious subset of the study of abiogenesis.

I laugh at scientists who are afraid of the questions. There have not been a greater collection of "skeptics" since the Flat Earth Society of 1491.

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 05:30:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes they are debating Darwin's theory (none / 0)

The movie you saw is propganda and the producers of this film have been shown to be dishonest, I again refer you to the Expelled Exposed site. You should watch the NOVA documentary on the ID trial in Dover, PA. They are trying to insert Intelligent Design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. If you have gotten the impression that that is not the case, you have been mislead. Par for the course for this bunch.

They said that ID was not a front for creationism and were "exposed", if you will, to be bald faced liars as shown in this clip from the documentary. Thus proving in court that teaching ID in public schools was unconstitutional, in addition to being proven at the trial not to be science based on the claims they were making.

One thing IDers do is say the accept "microevolution" but reject "macroevolution". What they fail to see is "macro" is just "micro" on a longer timeline. It's part of how they obfuscate the facts. You've been taken in by some dishonest propoganda my friend, the evidence is overwhelming.

by mr science on 04/29/2008 07:07:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX Expounded (none / 0)

Conservatives believe in working hard in this life to make our ancestors and descendants proud of us.True of Buddhists. True of Mormons. True of Catholics. True of Baptists.
Liberals, by contrast, are only concerned with the moment.

This tremendoudly conceitfull comment is why conservatives are miserable assholes incapable of enjoying life, or seeing others live there lives ,without trying to impose there odd values of self-servitude to the dollar ( without concern for who or what they impact) on those of us who value family, friends and the planet.

 From the sublime:

climactic scene was the polite sit down and genteel exchange 

 His post is concluded with this

 I realize there is much more to life than meets the eye.

Really? More than Tax cuts? A breakthough!

Sadly, Ken descends back to the ridiculous , extolling the virtues of ubergreed with the typical rancor conservatives pass off as discourse and "values":

 Ben Stein makes more money in one hour than you will ever make in your pathetic life. He has written many books explaining how he got rich

completely missing the greater point of the movie.

 Two thumbs down.

by MRFred on 04/29/2008 10:22:37 AM EST

I'm quite happy for you to live YOUR life. (none / 0)
But please, kindly remove YOUR hand from MY pocket.

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 10:44:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why thanks, and I am happy for you (none / 0)

to do the same.

But don't unload YOUR responsibility as citizen on ME.

As you said:

We are all in this together... KenTx

 

by MRFred on 04/29/2008 02:31:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hold the phone (none / 0)

You mean Ben Stein turned a background of privilege into a  lifetime of wealth?

I take back everything I said.  Clearly he understands the most prfound and unsolvable mysteries of the universe like the origins of life.  How can you fools not see this!

Everything people who are born rich say is always true!!! 

by ProfRich on 04/29/2008 10:46:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Geez.... (none / 0)
their damn it....

by MRFred on 04/29/2008 02:27:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Third Life (none / 0)

KenTX, your god seems to be money as everything seems to come back to worshipping it and those who have it.  I'm glad I have *enough* of it, but I don't get it as an ends in itself.

In terms of statistical probabilities, you might enjoy this alternate theory of things:

http://www.simulation-argum ent.com

 

 

by desertpear on 04/29/2008 12:02:17 PM EST

Rewriting the curriculum (none / 0)

As a certified teacher I feel qualified to adjust a standard science-based curriculim to include intelligent design.

First, teach all the science of evolution just like you are already doing.

Then at the end say, "some people believe this is too complex to have happened without intention"

Now you move onto the resporatory system or some shit.

Ta-da! You have now included every point a reasonable person can consider valid enough to teach in a school. 

by ProfRich on 04/29/2008 04:20:26 PM EST

And pray tell, (none / 0)

how is it possible to address all "the points every reasonable or unreasonable person considers valid enough to teach" in all the different subject matters in school?

 No, stick to science in science classes, leave religion out of it.

by Lusmu on 04/30/2008 12:49:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Religion (none / 0)
http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg

by alphasigmookie on 04/29/2008 10:44:41 PM EST

Ben Stein's Expelled | 72 comments (72 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: