I'm interested in truth & what it means for individuals & humanity. This re-vamped blog is dedicated to truth and honest questions about faith in Jesus Christ. It is an effort to engage in authentic dialogue among Christians, Atheists and all points in between. Posts that do not honor legitimate discussion may be removed at my discretion. That doesn't mean that you can't disagree, but it DOES mean that you can't be a jerk. Welcome to the discussion.
I really appreciated Ben Stein's contribution to the popular debate between intelligent design and unintelligent design. What sets Stein's work apart is that it doesn't get mired in pointless arguments between a 6-day literal creation event (via the Bible) or Darwinian Evolution. For the uninitiated, it is absolutely necessary to understand that there is a big difference between the Intelligent Design (ID) movement and the intelligent design hypothesis. The former is an official movement of Christian fundamentalism and the latter is simply a hypothesis concerning where life on this planet first came from. These designations are not altogether dissimilar from the variance between calling oneself a Republican (political party affiliate) and calling oneself a republican (advocate of a form of government). They can go together, but are not required to do so.
Concerning the hypothesis of intelligent design, or what Stein is advocating in this film, he does not contest that organisms change, even drastically, over time. What he DOES question is why supposedly "objective" scientists are not allowed to consider the hypothesis that our planet's FIRST life may have had its origins in an intelligent being rather than random, purposeless and unintelligent entities. The film reviews case after case of qualified and authorized scientists being defrocked and run out of their allegedly unbiased scientific institutions because they dared to consider the possibility that an intelligence was at the source of biodiversity we find on our planet.
What is also extremely important not to miss here is that these professionals were NOT saying that an intelligent designer DID it (they never got that far). They merely considered the hypothesis and asked how it might be explored... and were sacked for it. Apparently daring to consider a hypothesis that is not part of the philosophical status quo (which operates secretively behind many purportedly "scientific" institutions), is not something that the prevailing unintelligent design subscribers are willing to tolerate.
But what I found particularly interesting in the film was Stein's interview with the vociferous atheist, Richard Dawkins. While Stein did ask a few pointless questions, the most important one regarded the origin of life. Dawkins' answer was astonishing, for recognizing the immense difficulty of proposing that something came from nothing (life developing from nothing in the case of the unintelligent design theory), Dawkins shifted to a form of the anthropic principle often used by his arch-enemies: Christians. Gasp! Essentially, this argument goes something like this: Since life requires such an endless amount of very specific conditions and events to exist, it could not have come to fruition in any other way, yet despite the improbability, here we are. Christians will often add "and thus required assistance from God," but Dawkins doesn't go there specifically. But what he DOES say is akin to the same thing (life is too complex to come from nothing), for he speculates that perhaps the first living matter on earth actually had its origins in space via an asteroid that crash-landed into the primitive earth. I had to rewind to make sure I heard Dawkins correctly. Yep, life from outer space. The problem with this, of course, is that it doesn't solve anything. It is a faith position and merely adds another (speculative) link in the chain: "Ok, where did THAT life come from, Dr. Dawkins?" And we're back to the original problem.
In summary, "No Intelligence Allowed" is an interesting expose' that pokes at the hidden and soft underbelly of the dominating philosophical position pervading so many of our "scientific" academies: "Unintelligent design or you're fired." The truth is that this is censorship and it controls what purportedly "unbiased" scientists can and cannot question and explore. A big thanks is due to Ben Stein and the scientists willing to pay the price for being advocates of authentic inquiry.
Your review is yet another in an endless series of reviews with little new to say and little to suggest that you have any idea what you are writing about. Like so many other positive reviews of the film, there is no effort to consider even the remotest possibility that the presentation may be biased. Since your review suggests you have an awareness of the subject beyond the film, this seems a particularly disingenuous presentation.
In the end, one must ask if ID actually is science. If it is not, why is it being taught as science and presented as science? Most positive reviews either ignore or dismiss such a question and you are no exception. The overarching sarcasm only makes the review that more unreadable to all except the film's admirers. Frankly, there is nothing in this review that merits any attention. Even the film's fans have probably read more and better in the past. I have commented on several of the positive reviews but could not see any reason to add a comment to this. But once again, that old argument emerges: If you do not say anything, it is because the review is so wonderful that there is nothing to say. I do not think this is the case at all.
DZ, Your post seems a bit muddled. If my review "merits no attention," then your comment belies the proclamation. I also have to ask if you've even seen the film. Contra your assertion, Stein makes no attempt to teach intelligent design as science but merely asks why the hypothesis cannot even be explored by so-called "objective" researchers to begin with. And as I said in my original post, it is an important nuance to distinguish the official "ID" movement from the idea of intelligent design. You seem to have missed this.
I am courteous enough not to call people liars without reason. Apparently it is not a view you share. I am sorry to have responded to you or to have tried to engage you in discussion. I was fooled by your comment. You care nothing about what anyone else thinks, only yourself. And frankly, rude, narcissitic people are something I can do without.
DZ, This seems strangely familiar. Isn't this how our last conversation ended elsewhere? I am confident that I am not the one being rude here, but I apologize if you feel like I called you a liar. I merely intended to point out the incongruity of your proclamation that my review was not worth commenting on... by commenting on it. Doesn't that strike you as even a little bit humorous? Nevertheless, I humbly suggest that if you cannot accept counter criticisms, then you should consider not picking fights with people. May you have peace.
"Anonymous"? Really?? Well, so much for polite disagreements. I'm not going to respond in anger, but I will say that any future comments of a similar nature will be deleted. I'm not looking for a fight, but rather for a good discussion. You don't have to agree with me, but this...
Please keep in mind that comments which do not honor the spirit of legitimate dialogue may be removed at any time and without notification. You are free to disagree passionately, but not inappropriately. -CL
I really appreciated Ben Stein's contribution to the popular debate between intelligent design and unintelligent design. What sets Stein's work apart is that it doesn't get mired in pointless arguments between a 6-day literal creation event (via the Bible) or Darwinian Evolution. For the uninitiated, it is absolutely necessary to understand that there is a big difference between the Intelligent Design (ID) movement and the intelligent design hypothesis. The former is an official movement of Christian fundamentalism and the latter is simply a hypothesis concerning where life on this planet first came from. These designations are not altogether dissimilar from the variance between calling oneself a Republican (political party affiliate) and calling oneself a republican (advocate of a form of government). They can go together, but are not required to do so.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the hypothesis of intelligent design, or what Stein is advocating in this film, he does not contest that organisms change, even drastically, over time. What he DOES question is why supposedly "objective" scientists are not allowed to consider the hypothesis that our planet's FIRST life may have had its origins in an intelligent being rather than random, purposeless and unintelligent entities. The film reviews case after case of qualified and authorized scientists being defrocked and run out of their allegedly unbiased scientific institutions because they dared to consider the possibility that an intelligence was at the source of biodiversity we find on our planet.
What is also extremely important not to miss here is that these professionals were NOT saying that an intelligent designer DID it (they never got that far). They merely considered the hypothesis and asked how it might be explored... and were sacked for it. Apparently daring to consider a hypothesis that is not part of the philosophical status quo (which operates secretively behind many purportedly "scientific" institutions), is not something that the prevailing unintelligent design subscribers are willing to tolerate.
But what I found particularly interesting in the film was Stein's interview with the vociferous atheist, Richard Dawkins. While Stein did ask a few pointless questions, the most important one regarded the origin of life. Dawkins' answer was astonishing, for recognizing the immense difficulty of proposing that something came from nothing (life developing from nothing in the case of the unintelligent design theory), Dawkins shifted to a form of the anthropic principle often used by his arch-enemies: Christians. Gasp! Essentially, this argument goes something like this: Since life requires such an endless amount of very specific conditions and events to exist, it could not have come to fruition in any other way, yet despite the improbability, here we are. Christians will often add "and thus required assistance from God," but Dawkins doesn't go there specifically. But what he DOES say is akin to the same thing (life is too complex to come from nothing), for he speculates that perhaps the first living matter on earth actually had its origins in space via an asteroid that crash-landed into the primitive earth. I had to rewind to make sure I heard Dawkins correctly. Yep, life from outer space. The problem with this, of course, is that it doesn't solve anything. It is a faith position and merely adds another (speculative) link in the chain: "Ok, where did THAT life come from, Dr. Dawkins?" And we're back to the original problem.
In summary, "No Intelligence Allowed" is an interesting expose' that pokes at the hidden and soft underbelly of the dominating philosophical position pervading so many of our "scientific" academies: "Unintelligent design or you're fired." The truth is that this is censorship and it controls what purportedly "unbiased" scientists can and cannot question and explore. A big thanks is due to Ben Stein and the scientists willing to pay the price for being advocates of authentic inquiry.
Thanks for reading,
-C. Lambeth
Your review is yet another in an endless series of reviews with little new to say and little to suggest that you have any idea what you are writing about. Like so many other positive reviews of the film, there is no effort to consider even the remotest possibility that the presentation may be biased. Since your review suggests you have an awareness of the subject beyond the film, this seems a particularly disingenuous presentation.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, one must ask if ID actually is science. If it is not, why is it being taught as science and presented as science? Most positive reviews either ignore or dismiss such a question and you are no exception. The overarching sarcasm only makes the review that more unreadable to all except the film's admirers. Frankly, there is nothing in this review that merits any attention. Even the film's fans have probably read more and better in the past. I have commented on several of the positive reviews but could not see any reason to add a comment to this. But once again, that old argument emerges: If you do not say anything, it is because the review is so wonderful that there is nothing to say. I do not think this is the case at all.
DZ,
ReplyDeleteYour post seems a bit muddled. If my review "merits no attention," then your comment belies the proclamation. I also have to ask if you've even seen the film. Contra your assertion, Stein makes no attempt to teach intelligent design as science but merely asks why the hypothesis cannot even be explored by so-called "objective" researchers to begin with. And as I said in my original post, it is an important nuance to distinguish the official "ID" movement from the idea of intelligent design. You seem to have missed this.
Have you considered your own faith positions?
-CL
I am courteous enough not to call people liars without reason. Apparently it is not a view you share. I am sorry to have responded to you or to have tried to engage you in discussion. I was fooled by your comment. You care nothing about what anyone else thinks, only yourself. And frankly, rude, narcissitic people are something I can do without.
ReplyDeleteDZ,
ReplyDeleteThis seems strangely familiar. Isn't this how our last conversation ended elsewhere? I am confident that I am not the one being rude here, but I apologize if you feel like I called you a liar. I merely intended to point out the incongruity of your proclamation that my review was not worth commenting on... by commenting on it. Doesn't that strike you as even a little bit humorous? Nevertheless, I humbly suggest that if you cannot accept counter criticisms, then you should consider not picking fights with people.
May you have peace.
-CL
Go to hell.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous"? Really??
ReplyDeleteWell, so much for polite disagreements. I'm not going to respond in anger, but I will say that any future comments of a similar nature will be deleted. I'm not looking for a fight, but rather for a good discussion. You don't have to agree with me, but this...
I just think you can do better.
May you find peace,
-CL