Ben Stein makes me sad.

[chormin]

Intelligent Design is the death of science. Its view that some things are too complex for natural processes to create means that at some point we can't learn anymore. That there is a horizon on science's border after which we can only say "It was designed". It limits and restricts its proponents and frankly, its out of the spirit of science up to

Comments

Blasphemy!!!

[rwdederick]

How dare you doubt the great works of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Repent! And do not follow these evil links:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2008/04/18/whatever-you-do-this-weekend-dont-see-expelled/

[redfreadom]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! Science will never be able to prove god doesnt exist. Maybe the theory will retreat a little.

God could always be in the chaos or in the laws of science and contruction of space/time.

Maybe some people are a little foolish in sticking to thier "evolution is a lie" guns but intelligent design will probably exist forever. Couldnt God have ensured evolution folowed the path it did to create man? Sure why not.

I guess what I am getting at is I disagree with the idea that believing God had a hand in creation limits or restricts science. Afterall people could want to know more about the tools he used to create us.

Unless of course you read genesis. Then you know that getting to close to understanding God gets you spanked.

[rwdederick]

Science doesn't need/want to prove God does or does not exist. Science just wants to be science. It's Intelligent Design that is essentially is trying to mascaraed as science (and be put in science text books) with no scientific support. It's like if I dressed up as a doctor and tried to perform brain surgery and the real doctors telling me to get lost...and then I went out and made a movie about the big bad mean doctors.

[redfreadom]

Like I said, anti evolution is a tad silly. But there are other forms of intelligent design that arent so silly. Do they need to be in text books? No. Do I feel like it impedes learning to suggest it might be true? No as long as very little time is expended.

[chormin]

The problem with suggesting that ID might be true is that people won't bother to learn the theory in full, and learn the part that apeals to them generally 'this is too specific and complex for me to imagine a natural process, therefor it is designed.'