Comments on: Expelled Exposed

By: M Davis

M Davis — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:43:54 +0000

It is of interest to note that there may be some merit to what Dr B. Stein presents. It is to the discipline’s benefit to allow some controversy and free inquiry. It is also a scientific discipline’s advantage not to dismiss out of turn ideas that may not entirely meet with personal notions or widely accepted views.
For example, when Apollo landed on the moon 2 incidents were reported in the news: (1) people interviewed in Lybia said that a moon landing was a fake, not possible. Why? Because anyone could see that it was too small! And (2) the Flat Earth society admitted that the world was round yet still flat. It was more like a “Pie pan than a sphere” and could therefore be both. Popular, widely held opinions can be dead wrong, can’t they?
Recall if you will Immanuel Velikovsky ‘s worlds in collision. Even Carl Sagan said in his work “Cosmos” (paraphrased) that it was a blemish on the scientific community to dismiss this work without the proper rigor and balanced scientific rebuttal it was due. Perhaps you can quote more thoroughly but the point is well taken. Often it is in the crucible of scientific examination and inquiry that advances and newer ideas and explanations take place. Velikovsky pointed out several items – which came to be true- but had a different explanation than originally postulated.
Dr. Sagan himself was key in developing idea’s to explain the extreme heat and radio phenomena of Venus, and later Jupiter, would later be confirmed to be. Several ideas and phenomena that later turned out to be true, yet not for the reason imagined, were brought about by science and inquiry.
Among the notions that have been brought forward are 1850’s notions of the earth’s age. The idea was that the earth could have only been as old as it was because at the distance and size of the sun there was only about 6000 or so years of cord wood to fuel the blaze. It was because of that notion that several religious thinkers calculated the notion of the 4000 year old earth. There are now several ideas to contradict that notion yet it is still quoted as a problem with other positions; whether or not the belief is held at all?
As Sagan said (again paraphrased) “…when Darwin came along the idea of evolution had been presented, discussed and dismissed because of the perceived time limit.” It is must be really tough to swallow the reason Charles Darwin originally set forth down his research: “To explain how it was possible for all of the animals to fit on the Ark.” An ironic historic note, isn’t it?
Perhaps Ben Stein’s “expelled” presentation should be carried on your website along with other propositions.
I am skeptical. I do not believe or embrace the “God” hypothesis. But neither is it prudent to consider the current state of disciplines worth vitriolic rebuttal. I continue to find that there is something inherently weak about the position that requires force (either of position or popularity) to maintain. This course chosen by many responders apparently.
I think that upon close examination, Ben Stein’s presentation is well made. It seems odd to me the amount of air and lip service being given to a singular proposition without any debate or rebuttal. I had to watch the presentation several times to really see the subtle points that were at issue. Spontaneous Generation for instance: one idea that I first saw and debunked in chemistry class was the notion of putting in rags and grain and getting out mice. In the course of discussion the theory of spontaneous generation was effectively put forward as a Darwinian concept. Then came the startling revelation that Dr. Richard Dawkins said that aliens may have brought about the change from inorganic to organic chemistry. It is startling that even well considered individuals will embrace an idea in an unguarded moment.
As an individual who has seen first hand the products of intelligence put into crop and livestock selection and breeding; a unquestionably specific result as well as some not so well intentioned results. The timeframes are remarkably short. I suppose that is why the “Eugenics” movement of the turn of the century was so widely embraced. Perhaps the counterpoint of ID should be embraced as an alternative opinion free of the religious overtones. Not one you agree with, but one that exists none the less.
There was a time in the early 50’s when Carl Sagan was in the same position (popularity wise) with respect to planetary astronomy. Not popular; unworthy of serious study. Time and fortunes conspired to change that position though. To quote J. Randi “ hmm, Interesting.”

By: Skepticus

Skepticus — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:06:27 +0000

I used to hold Ben Stein in high regard as an intellectual, political observer, humorist, etc. but I have lost all respect for him. Now he is just another sad, pathetic bible-thumper, cursing anyone not sharing his beliefs.

By: Dwayne

Dwayne — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:00:58 +0000

Matt,

That’s a common misconception made by theists. The truth of the matter is that I still do what is right because I have compassion and a conscience. I believe it is far more noble for a person to perform good deeds just for the sake of doing them, than for a person to do good deeds because they believe there is a reward in it for them in an afterlife. There may well be problems with atheism, but that is not one of them.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:06:28 +0000

I would highly suggest for you, and any one else interested to read the book ""The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions." by self-professed secular Jew and mathematics/philosophies teacher David Berlinski. This tells the story of a Jew who was forced to dig his own grave prior to being shot by a German soldier. Prior to being shot, the old Jewish man advised the German that “God is watching what you are doing.” The Jewish gentleman pointed what i think is the real problem with atheism. "If you have the time please check the book out

By: Tom Coward

Tom Coward — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:43:28 +0000

Jaco: Bill Perron is/was a stage magian who now fancies himself a mentalist or astrologer or some such. I gather that he submited some ill-defined ‘paranormal power’ to the James Randi Foundation to try to get the $1,000,000 prize that they offer for proof of such an ability. From what I can tell, they got into some sort of disagreement aboput this, and Perron has been sore ever since. Try this link for more info: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72485

Or this one: http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i2

By: Jaco

Jaco — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:18:50 +0000

Who is Bill Perron?
What is he on about Randi being a liar?
Someone please respond.

By: Eli

Eli — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:42:22 +0000

Bobcarp – Scientology (oh, I just couldn’t resist.)

Tom -

You may be a bit extravagant with the use of Solipsism to refer to the Christian worldview. The thought that their own minds are the only certain thing would fly in the face of revelation as the only means to truth. I’ve got to think more about that. Certainly it doesn’t apply to their view of other belief systems – there’s another word for that.

Interesting comment re: new animals in the new world. But then, there are other animals that were already known in the 15th century that aren’t mentioned in the Bible – so maybe a problem for some.

Seeing is believing? Really? I’ve never seen a subatomic particle (or a molecule for that matter.) I do trust that certain quantum physicists are telling the truth, and that they are doing their math well.

Seeing is believing? Really? Explain a mind like Einstein’s. He certainly extrapolated far beyond his own senses . . . his predictions certainly bordered on the metaphysical.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear as magic.” Paraphrase of Arthur C. Clarke

Nothing we think is as simple as we’d like to think it is. Or, as H.L. Menken might have said (but as far as I know, didn’t) “faulty logic is not confined to the ranks of people who disagree with me.”

By: Tom McEwin

Tom McEwin — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:12:00 +0000

What a terrific thread! I love it when passionate, educated people argue with each other.

Re: Devotion to the “Bible” – I suggest you investigate “solipsism.” Startlingly (to me), Christians (in general) and “evangelical” Christians in particular, seem to be able to ignore the fact that there are hundreds of religions with creation myths and methods of salvation and promises of paradise. Since they can’t ALL be right, somebody’s wrong. And the adherents of every religions all think they are the ones that are right! I love watching you guys argue about your prferred superstition like a little boy loves the circus! (thanks to H. L. Mencken).

Re: Evolutionary Theory – Scientific “theories” not only explain observations, but predict future occurrences. If the Theory of Evolution failed to predict changes in existing flora or fauna, or failed to explain observed structures in animals and plants, then it would be junked in a heart beat by scientists who believe the evidence, rather than searching for evidence of what they believe. But it won’t be because some religious authority received some spurious “revelation” or relies on some really awful collection of middle-eastern mythology (the Bible) or someone has a sword to their throat. We’re living with the same kinds of people, who, when they were in authority, burned non-believers at the stake and retarded the progress of science and discovery at every opportunity, if it didn’t line up with the Bible. (Oh, and by the way – the discovery of the New World really caused a crisis in the organized Church of the day – none of the animals found in the New World appeared in the Bible! Holy Crap! How do we spin this? “God” isn’t an explanation for anything. Science is. When science doesn’t have an answer, scientists say, “We don’t know… yet.” When religionists don’t have an answer, they say God moves in mysterious ways.)

And finally – re: the Ten Commandments – Doesn’t it seem a little odd that “God” would have to tell the Israelites that lying, murder, adultery and perjury were bad? They needed “revelation” for that? The most primitive cultures in existence have avoided the whole problem by either sharing everything, or have a highly developed sense of social interaction where predatory behavior against one’s fellows is considered abhorrent. But the God who doesn’t want you telling white lies to your Mother doesn’t find genocide, slavery, prostitution, ordinary murder (as long as they weren’t Israelites) were okay? It’s so obvious that self-interested priests that had an interest in controlling the community, for their own benefit, and had “revelations” that supported that control and their own power.

For the religious – believing is seeing. For the rest of us seeing is believing. We require proof. They only need one book, and anthing that disturbs them must come from their “devil.” Would that they could live in a world where the Sun circled the earth, just like in the Bible. But, sadly, they don’t. Too bad.

By: bobcarp

bobcarp — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:27:25 +0000

Are there any religions that at some point DON’T have a story that involves a snake in a garden? Apparently the writers of these religious works are all Freudian.

By: George Parry

George Parry — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:36:24 +0000

I believe all of this could be cleared up with a thorough understanding of how the Bible stories cames about. If both sides of this argument were to study the many books available about how the Bible came about they would present their points of view from a better understanding not from a personal point of view. None of the books I have read say there is no god. They just outline how the bible came about.