UESP Forums

Benjamin Jeremy Stein

1944-2007



Requiescat in Pace

Thoughts? Opinions? Eulogies? Or just rotten fruit to throw at his hearse? This might be old news to some of you, but I just found about about it a few minutes ago. I'd rather remember him as the weedy pop-intellectual who made gameshows bearable, rather than as a 2edgy4u shiller for Creationism and scientific illiteracy, but the damage is done, and all that's left is to mourn his passing.

Good riddance to that.

Nah, he was dead to me when he started advertising those fake tear drops.

I don't have a problem with the idea of intelligent design being explored in science. If it's a question that has a tangible answer, why not explore it? If it leads to the discovery of aliens on another planet who created the world, well, cool. At least it'll clear up all these religious issues our planet has.
If it leads to an understanding that there IS in fact a god or gods, then maybe we'll figure out how to invoke them to explain why we're so effed up. And if it can be conclusively proven, that there is in fact no supreme diety or designer in this universe, then we can continue on our merry little way of launching bombs, raping and pillaging poor countries, and destroying our atmosphere.

Butterknife wrote:If it's a question that has a tangible answer, why not explore it?

That's the problem; it doesn't have a tangible answer, and it can't conclusively prove itself (or disprove itself, for that matter). It's an unfalsifiable theory, and worse, it runs counter to facts and data we know (or at least have quite solid reasons to assume) to be true. At best, it's a nice thought to tag at the end of Darwin, a sort of "well, Darwin is the mechanism, but God made it that way" caveat that doesn't really change anything and doesn't qualify as Intelligent Design (quite the opposite, really). At worst, it's a gross and purposeful misreprentation of almost two centuries of serious scientific thought and advances.

Now that's not to say it shouldn't be OK to "teach the controversy", since all scientific theories are inherently controversial and open to examination and challenge. But if you must do this, you should present a scientific alternative; like Lamarckian evolution! Not only would teaching Lamarck in schools help to show kid's that science isn't cut and dry facts and rote memorization of first causes, but it'd also help to show why the scientific community picked Darwin over the challengers, and that natural selection isn't simply an unquestionable monolith erected by incorrigable gits like Richard Dawkins.

Butterknife wrote:I don't have a problem with the idea of intelligent design being explored in science.

I have a problem with it because it's NOT F*CKING SCIENCE.

I'm too tired and stressed out to give you my whole spiel right now, so I'll just say I agree with whatever Doros just said.

I should start a new religion. Apotheism.

Atheists don't believe.
Agnostics don't know.
Apethists don't care. (Maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't, it doesn't really concern me)

Kudos to Lurlock for the idea.

Vesna wrote:I should start a new religion. Apotheism.

Atheists don't believe.
Agnostics don't know.
Apethists don't care. (Maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't, it doesn't really concern me)

Kudos to Lurlock for the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

It's not new.

<--fellow Apatheist

lowbart wrote:

Butterknife wrote:I don't have a problem with the idea of intelligent design being explored in science.

I have a problem with it because it's NOT F*CKING SCIENCE.

I'm too tired and stressed out to give you my whole spiel right now, so I'll just say I agree with whatever Doros just said.

This is their whole strategy, wearing us down when we try, over and over, to explain the idiocy behind their arguments.

Maybe it's working. I really don't care how terrible they're trying to make the education system. I earn enough to keep my kid in private schools. Society needs people to clean toilets and bag my groceries, after all.

Gone and Good Riddance!

I have a feeling this topic is about to get very religious.

Yea I thought that also lol. I will keep an eye on it.

Just to clarify: I have nothing against religion. Some of my best friends are religious. I grew up going to church, and I deeply admire those who follow Jesus's teaching and live a life of generosity and humility. I think religion can add a sense of richness and community to a person's life, if that's what they choose to believe.

That said, I don't think religion has any place whatsoever in a school funded with my tax dollars. The place for kids to learn about gods and creationism is in their homes, and at their church/temple/sunday school/prayer meeting/whatever.

Furthermore, I think ID is an insult to both the religious and those who take the scientific view. It has no basis in science, and yet attempts to deny the teachings of any actual religion.

If they teach the Bible in public schools, I would call that minority religion descrimination. What about all the people who are Wiccans, native religions, hinduism, taoists, etc.

I agree being an atheist myself but I think this topic might be better off left alone.

I am locking it for now but if anyone thinks that this thread is not purely about religion please yell at me. Thanks.