Rush Limbaugh Interviews Ben Stein

[Skeptic Ginger]

To be fair, Richard Dawkins talks about "Darwinism" all the time.

It's all about framing. Darwinism is an attempt to make evolution theory less science and more religion so that religion can be claimed to be an equally valid belief system.

Here's Dawkins talking about Neo-Darwinism

 

[Mashuna]

All I said is that the movie has done reasonably well. That seems to bother some people in here. I never said the fact that it has done well (for a documentary) had something to do with the veracity of its claims. That strawman was brought up by someone else.

So it was a pointless post you made? Fair enough.

 

[Mashuna]

There are plenty of bright people who favour ID over Neo-Darwinism. Some of them I would describe as brilliant.
Phillip E. Johnson is one of the latter.
Here is a fascinating interview with him.
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/le_berkeleysradical.htm

The scientific key is, "No natural processes create genetic information." As soon as we get that out, there’s only one way the debate can go because Darwinists aren’t going to come up with a mechanism. They’ll start out talking about the peppered moth, and when that self-destructs, then they’ll say, "Oh, self-organizing systems, or the fourth law of thermodynamics," and other nonsense, which is just covering up ignorance.

It was fascinating. It's a shame the quote you chose was a tired old creationist lie, but that does seem to be the level of Phillip Johnson's argument.

I'm sure that, as a lawer, he's very good at arguing his position. I bet he can stand at a lectern and tie his opponent in knots. Still the same old gibberish though.

 

[Mashuna]

If mechanism A is clearly an inadequate explanation it is not necessary to replace it with mechanism B in order for it be honestly acknowledged that mechanism A is inadequate.
The honest path would be to admit that we really don't know what the mechanism is.

Well, Phillip Johnson would seem to disagree. All he needs to do is decide (not show, obviously), that mechanism A is inadequate. Then it all falls into place for him. He's got the answer right here.

In short, my discovery that the reasoning in Darwinism is unscientific, illogical, and dishonest was tremendously important to me because it validates that "In the beginning was the Word" is really the correct starting point.

 

[westprog]

Well, Phillip Johnson would seem to disagree. All he needs to do is decide (not show, obviously), that mechanism A is inadequate. Then it all falls into place for him. He's got the answer right here.

I'm delighted to see that he's getting nowhere with the theistic evolutionists.

We’ve tried many times, but I’ve found that they are even harder to reason with than the atheistic evolutionists. I’ve been able to get along with the atheistic evolutionists better. It’s disappointing.

This is exactly what I'd expect. The explicitly atheistic evolutionists (e.g You Know Who) have a common cause with the fundamentalists. They want to show that evolution and religious belief are incompatible. That's not the same group as the people who accept evolution and happen to be atheists, of course - I'm referring specifically to the people who are promoting atheism on the back of evolution.

 

[Radrook]

I thought argument by authority was #1. But I'm afraid nobody wants to wade through almost 2000 posts to actually count them.

All pro ID arguments are tagged as arguments from authority for expediency's sake. Saves time, unpleasant effort and provides loads of chortling time which is deemed to be far more fun.

 

[DOC]

It is interesting how DOC uses appeals to authority, even though 99.999% of the authorities disagree with him.

Not according to the movie. One scientist claimed after scientists have a few beers some change their feelings about Darwinism.

Also you take away the grant money concerns and fears about repercussions (about talking about ID) and your unsourced 99.9 goes way down.

 

[joobz]

Not according to the movie. One scientist claimed after scientists have a few beers some change their feelings about Darwinism.

Also you take away the grant money concerns and fears about repercussions (about talking about ID) and your unsourced 99.9 goes way down.

Nope. the movie's full of lies.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/

and I've had many a beer, wine, shot with many a researcher and never once was there any "acceptance" of ID in those disscussions. And we discussed evolution. Simply put, ID isn't valid science. If someone came along to present a valid ID claim with proper evidence, it would be reconsidered. But there's no reason to beat the dead horse.

 

[Hokulele]

Not according to the movie. One scientist claimed after scientists have a few beers some change their feelings about Darwinism.

Also you take away the grant money concerns and fears about repercussions (about talking about ID) and your unsourced 99.9 goes way down.

That must be why ID is so respected among scientists in other countries and with other religious backgrounds.



Oh, wait . . .

 

[DOC]

Quote from DOC:

That might apply to your "opinion" of me, but what about all the brilliant PhD's who believe in ID.

Which brilliant PhD? Ben Stein? A man whose degree is in economics?

Well here is a list of modern scientists that I don't have the energy to count right now?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

And here is another list of about 30 with more well known names.

http://bassethound.wordpress.com/20...sts-who-believe-in-creationism-do-they-exist/

 

[wahrheit]

One scientist claimed after scientists have a few beers some change their feelings about Darwinism.

The smell of that "claim" is as stale as the lame no-atheist-in-a-foxhole thing.

Give them enough beer, give them enough bullets zipping around their heads, and they will fall to their knees and worship the almighty. *yawn*

and I've had many a beer, wine, shot with many [...]

You seem to be a really nice guy, I hope we will meet one day.

That must be why ID is so respected among scientists in other countries and with other religious backgrounds.



Oh, wait . . .

I am very glad that this whole ID discussion has not made it across the pond, yet. There was some news regarding ID not too long ago in Italy, but luckily I am not aware of much media presence as far as Europe is concerned.

 

[joobz]

Quote from DOC:

That might apply to your "opinion" of me, but what about all the brilliant PhD's who believe in ID.




Well here is a list of modern scientists that I don't have the energy to count right now?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

And here is another list of about 30 with more well known names.

http://bassethound.wordpress.com/20...sts-who-believe-in-creationism-do-they-exist/

Do you think it honest to present a list of scientists who believe in "ID" when some of them on the list were long dead long before darwin presented his theory of evolution not to mention the discovery of DNA and the molecular mechanism of evolution.

But, if we will play the number games, how about we give the list of people scientists named Steve who support evolution?
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp

 

[joobz]

You seem to be a really nice guy, I hope we will meet one day.

Why, thank you! The feeling is mutual.

 

[JoeEllison]

Quote from DOC:

That might apply to your "opinion" of me, but what about all the brilliant PhD's who believe in ID.




Well here is a list of modern scientists that I don't have the energy to count right now?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

And here is another list of about 30 with more well known names.

http://bassethound.wordpress.com/20...sts-who-believe-in-creationism-do-they-exist/

Wow, that means that ALL OF THE REST OF THEM, THE VAST MAJORITY, DISAGREE WITH YOU!!

For the love of Satan, can you have less of a point to make?

 

[JoeEllison]

Not according to the movie.

That movie is full of lies. You should be pissed off at Ben Stein and the ID bunch for lying to you, instead of defending them.

 

[Mashuna]

I'm delighted to see that he's getting nowhere with the theistic evolutionists.

This is exactly what I'd expect. The explicitly atheistic evolutionists (e.g You Know Who) have a common cause with the fundamentalists. They want to show that evolution and religious belief are incompatible. That's not the same group as the people who accept evolution and happen to be atheists, of course - I'm referring specifically to the people who are promoting atheism on the back of evolution.

It's a fair point. I think that evolution and certain types of religious beliefs are incompatible. I also think that evolution makes God unnecessary, but it's certainly not a disproof, and I don't care if other people believe in whatever they want. The whole ID movement and wedge platform annoys me, on the basis of its fundamental dishonesty.

That was an unintentional pun at the end, but I quite like it, so I'm leaving it in.

 

[rocketdodger]

Which brilliant PhD? Ben Stein? A man whose degree is in economics?

BTW, scince you love to use appeals to authority, I thought it best to inform you that I am a PhD in Chemical Engineering with postdoctoral experience in pharmacology and biomedical engineering. I am quite aware of evolutionary theory and it's implications in science. As such, my background is much more of an authority than Ben Steins.

You are? I never knew that joobz -- why didn't you help me when I was arguing with Kleinman about the application of Le Chatelier's principle during chemical synthesis?!?!?

 

[joobz]

You are? I never knew that joobz -- why didn't you help me when I was arguing with Kleinman about the application of Le Chatelier's principle during chemical synthesis?!?!?

I just googled it and I can't bleieve I missed that post of yours. Sorry about that. Although, I'm glad you saw exactly what I was trying to get at when I first mentioned how cooperative chemical pathways can result in a natural selection type phenomenon.

I must admit that Kleinman was my first exposure to dishonesty in science debates. Before him, I took for granted that scientists generally attempt to understand the argument you make and will openly discuss the merits of a point. They don't play semantic gotchya games or they don't extrapolate the argument beyond it's bounds in attempt to discredit the original statement made.

Now you know why Kleinman frequently referred to me as an "alchemical engineer" among his various other insults. You should check the beginning of that thread though. My favorite of his nonsense claims was when he attempted to say thermodynamics was a study of rates. To paraphrase his argument, "it's got dynamics in the name!"

 

[Civilized Worm]

It's all about framing. Darwinism is an attempt to make evolution theory less science and more religion so that religion can be claimed to be an equally valid belief system.

Here's Dawkins talking about Neo-Darwinism

I know what he means by it, I'm just pointing out that some people do use the term legitimately

All pro ID arguments are tagged as arguments from authority for expediency's sake. Saves time, unpleasant effort and provides loads of chortling time which is deemed to be far more fun.

Utter bollocks, the vast majority of pro ID arguments are arguments from personal incredulity and are called out as such.

 

[westprog]

It's a fair point. I think that evolution and certain types of religious beliefs are incompatible. I also think that evolution makes God unnecessary, but it's certainly not a disproof, and I don't care if other people believe in whatever they want. The whole ID movement and wedge platform annoys me, on the basis of its fundamental dishonesty.

That was an unintentional pun at the end, but I quite like it, so I'm leaving it in.

I think that a good part of the dishonesty lies in the pretence that there are people who have some kind of scientific doubt, and that they are presenting ID as a scientific concept, rather than a wedge to subvert the teaching of evolution. Very, very few of the people supporting the ID strategy will teach the different theories, given the chance. It will be straight down the line creationism and no messing.