This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

*snort*.

This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar.

I agree with you rembar that creationism, or "intelligent design" is not science, and never will be science, however: this movie is about science, made by people who are hostile to science, and who wants ideas based on no evidence at all to be called "science". So in that sense, I think it does have some sort of relevance to the science channel. But it does serve some poetic justice to Expel this from the science "classroom"

the scientific status quo

Where to begin? every word of every sentence by creationists are so soaked in complete ignorance and misinformation it is difficult to come to terms with.. there is no "scientific status quo" For the billionth time: Science is a METHOD, not a creed.

Ben Stein: ..random chance and chemical processes..

"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"
"Evolution by means of natural selection means it is NOT RANDOM"

Get it? now repeat that 4,7 billion times, and lets see how it evolves to

"I'm a stupid fucking hack creationist, and I'll never, ever get it."

What an intelligent argument repairman... So does the fact that I'm a physician whose entire life is built around science and yet I still believe in intelligent design--does that make me completely ignorant...or a "stupid fucking hack creationist"? Or, perhaps, are you the one who seems a little close minded here?

I'm not hostile towards science at all...it pays my bills. And I think that's going to be the entire point of this movie--we're not the hostile ones here (as you clearly pointed out in the above post).

ted,
"completely ignorant" pretty much nails it.

Ted, good baiting.

Anyway, just because an intelligent creator made everything doesn't mean that evolution is wrong. Saying "god did it" doesn't change the theory because you can say that god did anything and/or everything.

Evolution does not explain how life began. That's called the science of Abiogenesis and it doesn't really have anything to do with evolution. Evolution merely tries to explain the diversity of existing organisms.

Now, if you tell me that god created life. I can't argue with that and I won't look down on you for it.

If you tell me that god created the earth 4000 years ago and your proof is that the heart and brain couldn't evolve simultaneously. And that all the evidence contrary to that has just been misinterpreted or was put there by god to trick us. Well, I can't argue with that either. But in my opinion it does make you, as a physician, hopelessly ignorant.

As I don't really feel like putting much time into a videosift comment box...let me just qualify what I'm saying here.

1. Evolution exists, but not on the scale that many modern scientist claim--carbon molecules got lucky and made sludge, which made monkeys, which made me. I don't care if life was given an infinite number of years to develop, this still wouldn't happen. Dr. Behe said it best when he likened the mathematical chances of evolution taking us from carbon molecules to where we are today as the same mathematical probability of a tornado going through any random junkyard and building a functional 747 Jet...even if it did it in stages, it wouldn't matter. Given all the time in the universe, this just would never happen--well neither would evolution on the scale suggested.

2. The Earth is not a few thousand years old. This was an argument made up by Christians in the post-Darwin era to combat "scary" science that they believed threatened the core of their beliefs. Modern Christians who believe in intelligent design agree with any scientist out there about the age of the earth. Where we differ is how it how/why it was all started. We just believe that it is mathematically impossible for evolution to explain the diversity we see today in the millions of years that the earth has existed. Based on the enormous improbability (or impossibility) of that happening, it would seem to take more faith to believe in that than in a divine creator. And this is what I believe is going to be the point of this movie. The Intelligent Design movement isnt' attacking anyone or anything, we're just asking scientist to look at the facts and consider the alternative. And the facts are showing that there is simply not enough time for evolution on the scale suggested.

I don't mean to offend anyone, so let's quit with the name calling.

A few things:
Abiotic synthesis leading to abiogenesis is not evolutionary biology, don't conflate the issues. And humans aren't descended from monkeys, get your facts straight.

When it comes to the mathematical chances of evolution, the consistent flaw in calculations created by IDers and co. is that they fail to account for the fact that evolution is specifically NON-random. Basic evolutionary principles are based around the fact that cells and all other standard units of life are inherently order-creating mechanisms, and that increasing complexity is a result, not a mistake. Anybody who thinks they can apply a simple statistical calculation to this problem without accounting for this fact is gravely mistaken.

And to your second point, Ted...you do see how that argument you just made completely flies in the face of reason? In philosophy terms, the argument you presented is neither valid nor sound - not only are your premises incorrect, it does not follow that in the absence of a completely random chance of evolution (which isn't provable, you can never say it's IMPOSSIBLE, so even assuming your calculations were correct, which they aren't seeing as how evolution is an order-creating system, you'll never be able to prove that since it's unlikely for an event to occur, it did not - this is simply impossible to do) we must simply accept that some magical being must therefore have created it. I mean...what exactly is the statistical probability that God created all life on earth? Oh wait, we can't calculate that, ever. And that's barely touching on the fact that that entire argument can't be empirically studied or negated. The entire ID argument flies in the face of basic scientific principles.

Anyhow, no offense, but let's acknowledge that this video will never be allowed to remain in the Science channel so long as I have say, so this and anything like this will follow Qruel down the well.

Upvote for Ben Stein going nucking futs though.
And for a little well-produced diversity on the Sift.

This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

No.

The argument is much simpler than most people seem to think.

The scientific or evolutionary point of view holds that if we can't figure everything out exactly, we must continue to investigate to increase our understanding.

The Intelligent Design point of view holds that if we can't figure out everything exactly, it must have been done by God. This is the subtext every time you hear them say "the odds of this happening are next to zero", or "this is far too complex to happen by chance". That's all they've got.

The first encourages more thought, research, and experimentation. The second discourages it. After all, if you get to a point where you say, "God must have done this by His divine will," there is no point in continuing to study the matter. It's a cop-out.

This is why science and religion cannot co-exist. This is why it is critical that we do not allow Intelligent Design to be taught in schools.

I can't wait to watch this movie. I'm pretty sure it will be more of the same, but I am happy to be proven wrong. That's a scientist's point of view.

By the way, I agree that this video belongs on the science channel, just as a clip that was anti-gay would belong on the gay channel.

Did you know there are more nerve endings in your gut than anywhere else in your body?

This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Seriously, no. This will never be allowed into the Science channel so long as I am in control.

Discarding this video. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

While I agree with Rembar's stance and reasoning on this issue
he can fuck off for lumping my name and cause
getting rid of Fluoridation because the science shows it's harmful
in with creationist and the intelligent design movement.