Evidence for God from Science

Just came across this and thought others here might be interested to see the trailer: http://expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

Wow, is this for real?

zoegirl wrote:Wow, is this for real?

Yea Ditto...... hope it is would like to see it

zoegirl wrote:Wow, is this for real?

Yes, as far as I can tell it is. If taken by mainstream cinemas hopefully it should rocket the issue of why Philosophical/Metaphysical Naturalism has a stranglehold on science. There is really no reason for it.

I've known about this for quite some time, and have been waiting for it for a few months already. I'm waiting for the likes of Eugene Scott and Richard Dawkins to call him a creationist. Especially Dawkins-he has called non-Christians creationists (maybe he already has been called a creationist). But Ben Stein in shorts? Let's just hope all shots are waist up at the worst...

Many, of you know I disagree with much of what was in the trailer, but he does have a point about there being a new dogmatism the scientific circles.

Science is about skepticism, which leads to testing every minute detail of any and all scientific theories, although there is no place for this in high school and undergraduate courses, at the highest levels a healthy skepticism of anything should not be thwarted.

Kurieuo wrote:Just came across this and thought others here might be interested to see the trailer: http://expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

I had no idea that Ben Stein was an advocate for the ID movement... I've always had an admiration for Ben, maybe because of his Jewish demeanor which I find enlightening. I will definitely watch this video.

Thanks for sharing this Kurieuo...

Gman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Just came across this and thought others here might be interested to see the trailer: http://expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

I had no idea that Ben Stein was an advocate for the ID movement... I've always had an admiration for Ben, maybe because of his Jewish demeanor which I find enlightening. I will definitely watch this video.

Thanks for sharing this Kurieuo...

Actually be careful here. From what I have seen Stein does not seem to have much insight or care regarding Intelligent Design. Although he might cross paths with ID in that they see science is gripped by a philosophical naturalism, I think Stein has his own purposes. In video interview (found on the same site) on Fox TV, he not only allowed the host to interchange "Creation" with "Intelligent Design" but he himself did so.

Stein is not necessarily interested in ID, but is rather more interested in the dogmatism found in the sciences (which apparently even BGood was able to appreciate ). Not to mention the moral issues he himself sees with the premises on which Darwinian evolution is based. Regarding Intelligent Design and the movement itself, I have sincere doubts he really understands the differences between ID and creation (or creationist versions of ID) or even really cares. Yet, there is obviously a lot of overlap between Stein and ID.

Looks like a very interesting film.

hmmm... while I have no problem with kids deciding for themselves, I have a problem with including something in public schools that has been repeatedly been ruled as a "non-science". Just look at the ruling by a conservative, Bush-appointed Judge Jones on the Dover ID case and you have the answer.

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is a science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions to the public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

I say let the kids believe what they want, but keep real science in public schools and keep theology in Church. If we had to teach every version of creation, we would proably confuse the kids more than actually teaching them. A simple preamble at the beginning of the lecture, like "evolution is a theory that...", or even a class debate or assigned paper on the subject, would be more effective then introducing religion to public schools or textbooks.

Kurieuo wrote:Actually be careful here. From what I have seen Stein does not seem to have much insight or care regarding Intelligent Design. Although he might cross paths with ID in that they see science is gripped by a philosophical naturalism, I think Stein has his own purposes. In video interview (found on the same site) on Fox TV, he not only allowed the host to interchange "Creation" with "Intelligent Design" but he himself did so.

Stein is not necessarily interested in ID, but is rather more interested in the dogmatism found in the sciences (which apparently even BGood was able to appreciate ). Not to mention the moral issues he himself sees with the premises on which Darwinian evolution is based. Regarding Intelligent Design and the movement itself, I have sincere doubts he really understands the differences between ID and creation (or creationist versions of ID) or even really cares. Yet, there is obviously a lot of overlap between Stein and ID.

Ok sorry about that... I was reading off his profile on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Many, of you know I disagree with much of what was in the trailer, but he does have a point about there being a new dogmatism the scientific circles.

Science is about skepticism, which leads to testing every minute detail of any and all scientific theories, although there is no place for this in high school and undergraduate courses, at the highest levels a healthy skepticism of anything should not be thwarted.

What? You don't think Ben Stein could write on a blackboard?

And when did you change your view on science? As I recall, you said science's purpose is about searching for truth or something along those lines (and then there was some discussion about that).

Himantolophus wrote:hmmm... while I have no problem with kids deciding for themselves, I have a problem with including something in public schools that has been repeatedly been ruled as a "non-science". Just look at the ruling by a conservative, Bush-appointed Judge Jones on the Dover ID case and you have the answer.

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is a science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions to the public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

I say let the kids believe what they want, but keep real science in public schools and keep theology in Church. If we had to teach every version of creation, we would proably confuse the kids more than actually teaching them. A simple preamble at the beginning of the lecture, like "evolution is a theory that...", or even a class debate or assigned paper on the subject, would be more effective then introducing religion to public schools or textbooks.

As discussed elsewhere with Jad (you might be interested to read my other responses to him in that thread), Jones cut and paste ACLU's response. I doubt this makes your argument count for much.

Himantolophus wrote:hmmm... while I have no problem with kids deciding for themselves, I have a problem with including something in public schools that has been repeatedly been ruled as a "non-science". Just look at the ruling by a conservative, Bush-appointed Judge Jones on the Dover ID case and you have the answer.

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is a science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions to the public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

I say let the kids believe what they want, but keep real science in public schools and keep theology in Church. If we had to teach every version of creation, we would proably confuse the kids more than actually teaching them. A simple preamble at the beginning of the lecture, like "evolution is a theory that...", or even a class debate or assigned paper on the subject, would be more effective then introducing religion to public schools or textbooks.

Are judges the referees of science now? Must we go down this road?

What's with the non-sequitor? This topic is about a documentary which is about the fact that those who don't believe in Darwinism are persecuted one way or another because they don't believe in the right worldview (that is, they aren't hard core naturalists). Nobody has talked about teaching creationism--or ID. Unless I missed some great big sign in the thread that says otherwise.

Kurieuo wrote:

Himantolophus wrote:hmmm... while I have no problem with kids deciding for themselves, I have a problem with including something in public schools that has been repeatedly been ruled as a "non-science". Just look at the ruling by a conservative, Bush-appointed Judge Jones on the Dover ID case and you have the answer.

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is a science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions to the public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

I say let the kids believe what they want, but keep real science in public schools and keep theology in Church. If we had to teach every version of creation, we would proably confuse the kids more than actually teaching them. A simple preamble at the beginning of the lecture, like "evolution is a theory that...", or even a class debate or assigned paper on the subject, would be more effective then introducing religion to public schools or textbooks.

As discussed elsewhere with Jad (you might be interested to read my other responses to him in that thread), Jones cut and paste ACLU's response. I doubt this makes your argument count for much.

Judge Jones can do no wrong!