Very well put, it hadn't occurred to me that framing the discussion in terms of "doubt" was yet another form of deception and manipulation. It is insight like this that keeps me combing the comments section for bits of wisdom.
Here's the problem, everyone thinks that just because they have a belief that they are entitled to it. Not only that because they are so invested in it, both with years or even a lifetime devoted to it that it is just as valid as someone else's.
You might argue that both religious people and scientists are in the same boat on this issue, that is where you are wrong.
By even attempting to have a dialog with the religious people, by even pretending to give their nonsense credence you embolden them and you waste time; you distract people from reaching the truth.
I know for a fact this distraction is what these people want, they don't want the truth, they want what makes them feel warm and fuzzy and safe. The more people that believe it, the more they can surround themselves with it, the easier it is for them to believe the lie is true.
I'm all for the advancement and evolution of knowledge, but only when it is testable, falsifiable, reproducible. This pseudo intellectual discussion of intelligent design is none of that.
Why oh why do people need a "god"? Would your world be so cold, so meaningless, so immoral without it? And please explain what created your "god", because at some point the problem still gets reduced to something came from nothing. Evolution can quite beautifully explain how something can go from the simplest of things and through time can be something so much more. It even explains how paramecium can evolve into a human. Too bad people are simpletons and assume that the path is direct, they can't see the hundreds of millions of creatures that existed in the process and how each one was a little different. Then if you follow it long enough you can't even recognize how the current creature is related to one thousands of years ago.
The reason scientists are lashing back is because they are operating at a level so much higher than the common person. It would be like arguing calculus (scientist) with someone who can barely work with arithmetic (average person). Without a certain foundation of knowledge you can't even have the conversation, nor should you be allowed to even have an opinion on the matter. Yet this is what the average/religious people believe. They seem to think that they can create reality through democracy, as if you can just gather enough people that also want to believe what you want to believe and through popularity can make it the truth.
Ben Stein, and all religious people are petty and short sighted. So either put forth a new theory which better explains the diversity of life that is testable and falsifiable, or take your intelligent design theory back to philosophy where it belongs. It is not science, it never will be. In order for it to ever be science it will have to be something quite different than what it currently is...
Most mythology is usually based on some fact or event and then is taken way out of context and embellished, take the star of Bethlehem for instance. It was most likely a planetary conjunction...
http://www.sciencecodex.com/astronomer_explains_star_of_bethlehem
Slashdot Mirror
Very well put, it hadn't occurred to me that framing the discussion in terms of "doubt" was yet another form of deception and manipulation. It is insight like this that keeps me combing the comments section for bits of wisdom.
Here's the problem, everyone thinks that just because they have a belief that they are entitled to it. Not only that because they are so invested in it, both with years or even a lifetime devoted to it that it is just as valid as someone else's.
You might argue that both religious people and scientists are in the same boat on this issue, that is where you are wrong.
By even attempting to have a dialog with the religious people, by even pretending to give their nonsense credence you embolden them and you waste time; you distract people from reaching the truth. I know for a fact this distraction is what these people want, they don't want the truth, they want what makes them feel warm and fuzzy and safe. The more people that believe it, the more they can surround themselves with it, the easier it is for them to believe the lie is true.
I'm all for the advancement and evolution of knowledge, but only when it is testable, falsifiable, reproducible. This pseudo intellectual discussion of intelligent design is none of that.
Why oh why do people need a "god"? Would your world be so cold, so meaningless, so immoral without it? And please explain what created your "god", because at some point the problem still gets reduced to something came from nothing. Evolution can quite beautifully explain how something can go from the simplest of things and through time can be something so much more. It even explains how paramecium can evolve into a human. Too bad people are simpletons and assume that the path is direct, they can't see the hundreds of millions of creatures that existed in the process and how each one was a little different. Then if you follow it long enough you can't even recognize how the current creature is related to one thousands of years ago.
The reason scientists are lashing back is because they are operating at a level so much higher than the common person. It would be like arguing calculus (scientist) with someone who can barely work with arithmetic (average person). Without a certain foundation of knowledge you can't even have the conversation, nor should you be allowed to even have an opinion on the matter. Yet this is what the average/religious people believe. They seem to think that they can create reality through democracy, as if you can just gather enough people that also want to believe what you want to believe and through popularity can make it the truth.
Ben Stein, and all religious people are petty and short sighted. So either put forth a new theory which better explains the diversity of life that is testable and falsifiable, or take your intelligent design theory back to philosophy where it belongs. It is not science, it never will be. In order for it to ever be science it will have to be something quite different than what it currently is...
Most mythology is usually based on some fact or event and then is taken way out of context and embellished, take the star of Bethlehem for instance. It was most likely a planetary conjunction... http://www.sciencecodex.com/astronomer_explains_star_of_bethlehem