OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Brewtus]

I'm disappointed to see that Stein has created such an unremarkable "documentary". I used to have respect for him and thought he was a smart guy, but he seems to lack even a general understanding of how science works and what evolution explains (as others have stated, abiogenesis is not part of evolution). And he even stooped so low as to invoke Godwin's Law in his film! It's as if he took his script from an evolution/creationism discussion forum.

Intelligent Design is not scientific because it doesn't explain anything. Saying "God did it" isn't remotely useful, it doesn't explain the diversity of life in a way that can be tested and that's why these people were fired and not given research funds. If they want to be taken seriously then they need to propose a Theory of Creationism that is better supported and more useful than evolution.

 

[muffler dragon]

What are some of the more versed posters views on the Book of Enoch? Haven't gotten too into the Book of Jubilee yet but seemed interesting too..

Enoch is an extra-biblical book that was written well after the lifetime of Enoch. For me, it holds no validity at all. It may be an entertaining read from what little I have gleaned in discussions.

 

[muffler dragon]

How you prove God created life wasn't discussed in the film, and I don't know what that would entail, but again-that's the movie.

I'm glad it wasn't discussed. Reason being: it's a waste of time attempting to prove that there is G-d in the first place.

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie though. Sucks when films are a waste of time and money.

 

[muffler dragon]

It's pretty simple when you think about.

Germans thought they were superior. They killed the handicapped, diseased, and wanted to exterminate "less superior" people. It was an attempt to create a superior race without disease, handicap, or primative people.

American Scientists were involved on a small level and Eugenics which was once popular is the 50's is an example. Planned Parenthood was also developed by the wife of a popular Eugenics scientist and was a way to abort "poor/uncivilized" babies.

I'm sure someone can fact check the movie, but it seemed legit.

FWIW, t's true. If I'm not mistaken, the American eugenics campaign was earlier than the 50s. It's been a while since I investigated it.

 

[muffler dragon]

That is becauser there is no "scientific" proof of intelligent design. You can't prove God ( or Gods) with a microscope or telescope. Any scientist worth his or her salt would agree. Now, as people of faith, they might have a belief in a Higher Being that is the author of life or physics or gravity or whatever. But that is not science, but Faith.

Not being able to prove God via scientific method does not negate God, and the refusal of scientists to agree that God created life does not equate to Atheism. Point is, "intelligent design" is not meant to prove the Hopi or Norse God as Creator, it is solely there to prove the Genesis account, not matter what the odd non-Christian intelligent design adherent says.

I agree with the emboldened whole heartedly.

I did want to ask: is ID strictly Genesis related, because I was under the impression it didn't sit solely under that umbrella?

 

[muffler dragon]

As one Intelligent Design scientist states...the story of Noah is laughable.

Which would be another red herring. ID, from my understanding, has nothing to do with post creation considerations.

Anyway... the background of Noach and all the things that pertain to him and his family are better understood from a Judaic POV, IMO.

 

[muffler dragon]

If they want to be taken seriously then they need to propose a Theory of Creationism that is better supported and more useful than evolution.

Brewtus:

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "more useful"?

 

[MaxBuck]

It's pretty simple when you think about.

....a scientist brings up Nazi Germany and Darwinsim, Ben Stein goes to Germany and learns about why Hitler wanted to exterminate people. He/German scientists thought they could create a superior race because of Darwins' theory.

So I suppose the guy who originally harnessed combustion is responsible for the incineration of millions of Jews? Or the guy who invented concrete is responsible for Jimmy Hoffa's murder? Or the one guy who walked on water is responsible for all his imitators who tried, failed, and drowned?

This sort of "correlation" is inflammatory and beyond stupid. I agree it's "pretty simple" -- simpleminded, that is.

If this whole pile of nonsense relates to Ben Stein wanting to construct some sort of exegesis on the Holocaust, then I have to say Stein should be looking elsewhere, like in the Book of Genesis.

 

[Brewtus]

Brewtus:

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "more useful"?

Useful in the sense that it would provide a better mechanism than mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection to explain the diversity and genetic variation of life. Something that could be directly applied to studies in medicine, agriculture, etc. with better results than our current efforts.

 

[muffler dragon]

So I suppose the guy who originally harnessed combustion is responsible for the incineration of millions of Jews? Or the guy who invented concrete is responsible for Jimmy Hoffa's murder? Or the one guy who walked on water is responsible for all his imitators who tried, failed, and drowned?

This sort of "correlation" is inflammatory and beyond stupid. I agree it's "pretty simple" -- simpleminded, that is.

I think the better way of going about this would be to explain that there are those who take ideas to the extreme. Hitler took the "survival of the fittest" to the extreme. The part I would disagree about (if it is being done) is taking an amoral concept (evolution) and attempting to paint it as "evil". However, if it is simply a matter of showing that someone took such and such concept to an extreme; then it's not an "inflammatory and beyond stupid" presentation.

If this whole pile of nonsense relates to Ben Stein wanting to construct some sort of exegesis on the Holocaust, then I have to say Stein should be looking elsewhere, like in the Book of Genesis.

What the hell is this supposed to mean besides being being a "whole pile of nonsense"?

 

[muffler dragon]

Useful in the sense that it would provide a better mechanism than mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection to explain the diversity and genetic variation of life. Something that could be directly applied to studies in medicine, agriculture, etc. with better results than our current efforts.

Got'cha. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[MaxBuck]

What the hell is this supposed to mean besides being being a "whole pile of nonsense"?

If Stein is portraying evolutionary theory and its practitioners as sharing responsibility for the Holocaust, he is making a monstrous mistake. If he is, as you suggest, portraying evolutionary theory (metaphorically) simply as a tool, such as a hammer that Nazis used to crush the skulls of their victims, I have no problem with that.

My point simply was that if Stein or anyone else wants to know why Hitler behaved as he did, the story of Cain and Abel is pretty sufficient IMO.

 

[muffler dragon]

If Stein is portraying evolutionary theory and its practitioners as sharing responsibility for the Holocaust, he is making a monstrous mistake. If he is, as you suggest, portraying evolutionary theory (metaphorically) simply as a tool, such as a hammer that Nazis used to crush the skulls of their victims, I have no problem with that.

Okay.

My point simply was that if Stein or anyone else wants to know why Hitler behaved as he did, the story of Cain and Abel is pretty sufficient IMO.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[billmac91]

So I suppose the guy who originally harnessed combustion is responsible for the incineration of millions of Jews? Or the guy who invented concrete is responsible for Jimmy Hoffa's murder? Or the one guy who walked on water is responsible for all his imitators who tried, failed, and drowned?

This sort of "correlation" is inflammatory and beyond stupid. I agree it's "pretty simple" -- simpleminded, that is.

If this whole pile of nonsense relates to Ben Stein wanting to construct some sort of exegesis on the Holocaust, then I have to say Stein should be looking elsewhere, like in the Book of Genesis.

I don't know what this has to do with anything? Ben Stein isn't holding Darwin personally responsible for the Holocaust. He traveled to Germany to see how irrational people used Darwin's theory to try and create a superior race.

To answer your question, no-the guy who created concrete is not responsiple for Jimmy Hoffa's murder.

And no, Darwin is not responsible for the killing of millions of people because an irrational man thought he could create a superior race.

The trip to Germany was a side-bar in the movie, more of a learning experience for Ben Stein. Afterall, it is his movie and he is Jewish.

 

[MaxBuck]

The most interesting thing to me was the correlation between Nazi Germany, American scientists, and Darwinism.

billmac, you are the one who opened the door to my commentary with this comment. Are you backing off that now? Because the fact is, whoever claims that such a "correlation" exists speaks nonsense.