The Ranting Wren The Wren Forum Banner
The Glorious Wren The Movie Wren The Photo Wren Old Man Wren

Well, I’m very disappointed in Ben Stein. No longer will I be able to watch Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and think of Ben as the funny teacher. I will think of him as the pathetic mouthpiece of ID who, despite himself, must have accidentally been funny.

What the hell am I talking about? This:

Wow. There is so much that’s horrible about that clip, I can’t even see straight. O’Reilly really is an ignorant, posturing creep. It makes me sad that so many people hang on this man’s every word. And that Ben! What? He always presented such a fun yet rational image!

Okay, it’s not very fair to bludgeon Ben and his talents because he believes in God, but he really is asking for it. Perhaps I’m persecuting him for his beliefs, as he says “the seculars” do! Well, no. I’m not persecuting him for that, I’m persecuting him for his ignorance on the matters he’s trying to discuss. If you’re going to summarize the “secular” viewpoint of the beginning of life on Earth as “lighting striking a mud puddle,” then you are open game. Trying to sell the ID agenda as a simple first amendment right to free speech is full-on bullshit.

I got into all this again thanks to a very good Ars Technica article describing how, after a defeat in the courts, Intelligent Design is rebranding itself to take another shot at infiltrating schools. Ben mentioned in the above clip how desperate “seculars” are because Darwin’s theory is so flawed. “Seculars” aren’t the ones who are desperate, it’s the creationists who are desperate. Science doesn’t need to throw up a smokescreen to get taught in classes. Only fake, made-up ideologies reliant on ancient superstitions and human failings need to do so to be considered as proper curricula for schools.

While certain slimy types keep wanting to force ID into everyone’s consciousness, it’s good to keep finding articles like this one, which demonstrate how, little-by-little, humans can piece together the true evolution of life and the workings of the universe. There are no little pieces like this to support the concept of a creator, and I think, Mr. Stein, that that is what is making ID lovers nervous. All science needs to do is explore, finding clues and proof about the real world, while ID must rely on attacks, whining that science hasn’t discovered all the answers yet. Somehow, ID folks feel religion has, which is ludicrous.

What I find amusing (in a very scary way) is how Ben says evolution was a “brilliant proposition,” but faults it for not describing how life began in the first place. Gee golly gee! I wonder if perhaps Ben expects the theory of relativity to explain how H. G. Wells came up with the idea for his novels? This is a perfect example of propaganda. All you need to do is distort the facts enough, make up false doubts, and you’re on your way to a successful undermining of truth.

May I finally point out, Ben, that while you deride Darwin’s evolutionary theory as being out of date (“[it] was a brilliant theory in the middle on the 19th century… it’s the 21st century, there are a lot of questions…”), the concept of a creator is even more out of date and even more full of questions. Nice try. “Stein? Stein? Stein?”


fuz Expounded Thusly:

The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.
– Joseph Conrad

Wednesday, November 14th, 2007 • 5:29pm • Permalink

Robb Expounded Thusly:

Man, we must have some sort of strange cosmic brainwave connection because I was just watching videos about ID online yesterday too! Strange! Coincidences like that really confirm one’s beliefs in the almighty, don’t they? I mean what other possible explanation can there be? None. That’s what. Angels maybe…

As for ID, I smile when I see people like this talk about the desperation of the “seculars.” It lets me know that rational thought is prevailing. This is just an attempt by the religious right to make “seculars” look like they’re scared. it’s a common tactic, ironically, the same one utilized so well by the Republican Party. I’m sure it’s coincidental.

Yeah, why is one hundred and fifty year old science more outdated than a 2000-year-old myth? because science is timely and superstitions are forever?

Dipshits. Let’s just hope that “because someone told me so” never becomes “science.”

No, Ben, say it ain’t so!

Thursday, November 15th, 2007 • 10:36am • Permalink

Steve Expounded Thusly:

It’s all coincidence. Though I guess there is no coincidence. It’s all ordained. God wants us to discover how many things are wrong with religious doctrine, since it was created by mankind and mankind is flawed. Only then can pure faith take over.

Thursday, November 15th, 2007 • 12:43pm • Permalink

fuz Expounded Thusly:

“There are no atheists in foxholes.”

Friday, November 16th, 2007 • 2:32pm • Permalink

Steve Expounded Thusly:

I just now noticed that Fuz’s comment had a link! Oops! But I am stuck in the Ft. Lauderdale airport, waiting for my delayed flight to NYC, so I had time to read D’Souza’s post and the original article to which he’s referring.

D’Souza wrote a book called What’s So Great About Christianity (no question mark needed when faith is involved). This makes him instantly unreliable as an unbiased source. Not that he passes himself off as such, but he’s certainly not able to read the New York Times article with anything approaching objectivity. Nor am I, I suppose, but at least I try. At least I am constantly on the look-out for a smidgen of evidence of a “higher power.” Not because I want to be religious, but because this battle between the religious and the non-religious is horribly one-sided at the moment, and it’s more fun to have a debate with the other side when they have something of worth to argue.

The Times article is very well-written and informative. D’Souza would not have done such a job or researching a similar article, I wager. Or maybe he would have. Eh, probably not.

Once again, there is nothing in what D’Souza says that provides any true scientific proof, or even the suggestion of scientific proof, of a creator. That he and other like-minded religious types can not personally wrap their minds around something that has not yet been defined or described by science (such as the origin of the universe and the exact moment of the beginning of life on Earth) does not mean they have support for their claims. Complication does not prove authorship. Religion can not claim both simplicity and intricacy as proofs of its foundations.

D’Souza is correct on one point: Had Billy Graham or another staunch theologian suddenly, at the end of their life, switched from religion to atheism, it would be big, big news. The religious would make similar claims made in the Times article. The back-and-forth of the whole argument is tiring. But where is the spirit of discovery and proof in the religious world? There is none.

It’s hard to have an intelligent conversation on this topic when there is so little intellect involved. Which is a bit ironic, don’t you think?

Monday, November 26th, 2007 • 5:27pm • Permalink

fuz Expounded Thusly:

The more I know, the less I understand.

Wednesday, November 28th, 2007 • 1:03pm • Permalink


Sorry, I ain't takin' no comments on this page. Deal, y'hear?