Ben Stein pimping creationism in his new film

[pokerfan]

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007058.cfm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHbdMbSLfb4

[ColbertWatcher]

1. Ben Stein is a tool.

When did he get the idea that somehow he is a scientist?

[pokerfan]

2. I had no idea

Obviously you don't need a degree in science to believe in creationism.

The fact that he's using tired old arguments such as a 747 assembling itself in a junk yard nicely illustrates that he knows nothing about the subject he purports to critique.

[ColbertWatcher]

3. It seems to me...

...that the GOP have infiltrated philosophy classes so they can best abuse the rules of logic and confuse people who know next to nothing about real science.

Have you seen http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php">this?

[pokerfan]

5. That is too funny!

:rofl:

[Lost-in-FL]

10. >>>

That's the funniest thing ever!!! I CAN'T stop laughing!!! :rofl: :applause:

[struggle4progress]

8. Oh, c'mon! He's an eyeball education expert. And haven't you noticed

how those little eyedrop bottles fit perfectly in your hand? And don't try to make me think those bottles randomly evolved to that shape

[StClone]

4. Reiterating tidbits of info

As Ben Stein does on his show is not a sign that he is logical, analytical or has problem solving skills. Stein's embrace of Creationism dogma is as sad a statement of his lack of perspicacity as is the fact he is an ardent Con.

[pokerfan]

6. Which reminds me of a quote

"The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, while the others require scholarship." -Heinlein

[Beregond2]

7. Heinlein

was full of crap. Science isn't the only discipline that requires reason, for Pete's sake. Reason isn't even the fundamental tool of science; observation is.

[pokerfan]

9. There are many sciences

and observation without scientific reasoining doesn't get you very far. It;s basically the difference between Kepler and Newton.

It really doesn't matter whether or not Stein chooses to believe in a creator but that's a philosophical postion, not a scientific one.

Another quote from Heinlein, "I never learned from a man who agreed with me."

[Rob H.]

11. I saw a disinfomercial for "Expelled" on a religious channel yesterday

and the whole of Stein's reason for believing in creationism seems based on arguing from personal incredulity. He can't conceive of a world in which life arose and evolved on its own without a supernatural force setting everything in motion, therefore a supreme being must have done it. He's free to believe whatever he wants to believe, but what he believes isn't science, imnsho. (He's also pushing the idea that Darwinism led directly to the horrors of the Holocaust. I shit you not.)

ETA: There was some whackadoo hosting who called it a "myth" that people like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers were lied to and told that their interviews were being used in a documentary with a different focus. Dawkins, Myers, and others have publicly said otherwise (the project they were told they were being interviewed for was supposed to be called Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion) and I believe them, not Stein.