![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Ben Stein has made a movie decrying "big science's" oppression of the "smart new idea" of intelligent design. Unfortunately, he isn't trying to be a comedian this time.
http://expelledthemovie.com/
Folks, if you're going to float a theory that a big man in the sky made it happen, here is the test I will apply to your arguments. I will substitute the phrase "my hairdryer" for the phrase "the big man in the sky". If the evidence supports the fact that my hairdryer may have created the universe, I will listen. If it doesn't, you need to get over your fascination with the imaginary sky man.
I want to point out the "no intelligence allowed" tagline is extremely ironic.
http://expelledthemovie.com/
Folks, if you're going to float a theory that a big man in the sky made it happen, here is the test I will apply to your arguments. I will substitute the phrase "my hairdryer" for the phrase "the big man in the sky". If the evidence supports the fact that my hairdryer may have created the universe, I will listen. If it doesn't, you need to get over your fascination with the imaginary sky man.
I want to point out the "no intelligence allowed" tagline is extremely ironic.
no subject
on 2008-05-01 02:22 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2008-05-01 02:24 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2008-05-01 02:32 pm (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
He was "discovered" to fill the same role as your hairdryer.
no subject
on 2008-05-01 02:33 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2008-05-01 07:32 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2008-05-01 08:35 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2008-05-01 09:01 pm (UTC)I like using "hairdryer" though, because if there is sound theory based on evidence that explains life on earth, it should stand up without having to invoke a "creator figure" to make it work. It's like the Far Side cartoon where the professor stands at a blackboard full of formulas, and near the bottom it says "THEN MAGIC HAPPENS" followed by a result. It doesn't count as science, and I think the scientific establishment are right to "expel" those who are trying to redefine it as such.
To say "I don't have science that shows definitive proof", and then use that lack of fact to justify the jump to the big man in the sky theory is inexcusable. It just means we need more science, not witchdoctors.
I feel to allow "intelligent design" to be accepted as science is stepping back to the primitive ages, where superstition and gods were used to explain all natural phenomena we couldn't understand.
I believe there is something more going on than I can prove scientifically. I believe that given time, if we don't nuke or destroy our selves or our planet first, we will figure out how to detect and prove the existence of spirits, ghosts, telepathy, and what have you. Who knows, maybe even a higher power.
no subject
on 2008-05-02 12:21 am (UTC)It will ALL COME TO YOU
no subject
on 2008-05-02 12:28 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2008-05-02 01:39 pm (UTC)This could be a polar shift, evolution in action, or and age of enlightenment.
12/21/2012 is the termination date of the calendar for this age.
no subject
on 2008-05-02 01:43 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2008-05-02 01:46 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2008-05-02 08:07 pm (UTC)I'm also frustrated by some loudmouth atheists who insist that our lack of scientific evidence for the existence of some sort of god is proof that no god exists. We haven't scientifically disproven the existence of a god or gods, although we may have scientifically proven that one person (or group's) "proof" for the existence of God doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. There's an important distinction between those two things.
no subject
on 2008-05-02 08:15 pm (UTC)It's going to be a really disappointing day when we get our science up to snuff and realize our existence was created by an overworked mid-level manager in an alien bureaucracy. It *would* explain a lot though.
no subject
on 2008-05-02 08:24 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2008-05-02 08:07 pm (UTC)