Orlando Sentinel: Is Ben Stein the new face of Creationism?

Heh. Hosted at a mega-church, complete with non-disclosure agreements.

Science at its best, from the ID POV.

Well, at least every single line in the video clip is an obvious outright lie or a truncated quote mine.

It will be a moderate amount of work, but an intellectually easy task, to refute the entire film line by line.

Nothing particularly subtle here.

In other words, a stealth campaign, out of the public eye, preaching to the choir to get the word out about the movie without anyone who isn’t a true believer passing a discouraging judgment on it.

It will be a moderate amount of work, but an intellectually easy task, to refute the entire film line by line.

— harold

One thing that you can say with certainty is that it isn't a pretty face for creationism to have.

OTOH if he means “true believer” of a literal Genesis, then we should take every opportunity to expose the well-kept secret that there is not one, but several mutually contradictory interpretations of Genesis that all claim to be “the” literal one.

FL:

OTOH if he means “true believer” of a literal Genesis, then we should take every opportunity to expose the well-kept secret that there is not one, but several mutually contradictory interpretations of Genesis that all claim to be “the” literal one.

Well, okay. Expose your well-kept secret to me; I'm listening. What exactly are you talking about? FL

FL;

As unlikely as it may be that you will acknowledge--much less absorb--any of this, here you go. Perhaps a lurker or two will benefit from this. Selecting quotes from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/bible.html (particularly the "The Bible Has Two Creation Stories" section)

"Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

* Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
* Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
* Day 3: Plants
* Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
* Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
* Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
* Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)"

... later:

"The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

* Earth and heavens (misty)
* Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
* Plants
* Animals
* Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)"

... later:

"The contradiction between the orders of creation between the two stories is rather glaring. There are other contradictions. As I mentioned earlier, in the first story, God creates according to a carefully laid-out plan, one set of entities at a time. He says after each episode of creation that "it was good," indicating that he is very satisfied with what he has done. On the seventh day, he rests from his labors (though we are not told why an omnipotent being might need to rest). In the second story, he seems to be fixing up as he goes, only to see the principal objects of his attention commit a grave no-no. Here goes: I create the first man, but he's all lonely. I create some plants for him. He's still lonely. I create lots of animals for him. He's still lonely. I create a woman for him, and he seems satisfied. I tell those two not to eat any fruit from that Tree of Knowledge, but that pesky snake talks them into eating some of its fruit anyway. I kick those two out of that garden, and I order that snake to crawl on its belly. Creating a Universe seems more trouble than it's worth!

Methods of creation differ; in the first story, God "says" "Let X be!" and X comes into existence; while in the second story, God uses a more physical approach, molding the first man out of dirt (yecch!) and then breathing on it."

... etc.

In short, the Bible contradicts itself. There are two creation stories, and they are very different--so different that they cannot both be true. Insisting that the Bible (and/or particularly Genesis) must be literal & inerrant assigns equal authority to both. If they cannot both be true, then Genesis is not authoritative. This conflict is probably what Frank J was referring to; "True Believers" (tm) of the inerrant Bible avoid--or try desperately to double-talk around--this contradiction.

Good luck rationalizing how these two mutually exclusive mythic narratives both provide a better explanation of the origin of species than modern evolutionary theory.

how do they not get it? it's exhausting to see how much explaining is necessary to disabuse the uninformed.

This conflict is probably what Frank J was referring to; “True Believers” ™ of the inerrant Bible avoid–or try desperately to double-talk around–this contradiction.

OTOH if he means “true believer” of a literal Genesis, then we should take every opportunity to expose the well-kept secret that there is not one, but several mutually contradictory interpretations of Genesis that all claim to be “the” literal one.

Re F.L. Brown contradictions in Genesis: Genesis 2 was written several hundred years before Genesis 1, by nomadic herdsmen. It is a beautiful folk tale, explaining the birth of human consciousness in a way that those people could understand.

Genesis 1 was written by urbanized exiles who had been exposed to the more sophisticated civilization and theology of their captors. Genesis 1 is beautiful in a different way. The complex symbolism and numerology, the careful balancing of pairs, and pairs of pairs. The overt parody of Gilgamesh; casting the sun, moon, stars, etc. as inert material objects rather than the lesser gods of the Babylonians. Anyone who reads Genesis 1 as mere historical narrative misses all the beauty of the story, and all of the authors' theology as well.

In short, the Bible contradicts itself. There are two creation stories, and they are very different–so different that they cannot both be true.

Excellent and informative discussion, folks. If people would stop trying to use Genesis as a science textbook we could avoid all of the hassle.

Boy. it's a good thing the text can be interpreted literally, otherwise all sorts of confusion might arise.

FL: At any rate, both young-earth and old-earth creationists (as well as other writers whose exact affiliations I don't know about) have in fact demonstrated repeatedly and convincingly that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are neither mythic nor mutually-exclusive nor contradictory. There is simply ONE creation account, and that account is given to us in a complementary NOT contradictory manner. Let the lurkers check out the facts and judge for themselves! FL :)

I personally don't care whether or not Genesis I and II are contradictory. They are fiction. It doesn't really matter what they say or assert or claim to teach.

It makes about as much sense to worry about whether or not Chapter 1
and Chapter 2 of the latest Harry Potter novel are consistent.

Those biblical texts were written by ignorant men in a pre-scientific age when almost nothing could be explained except by making grand stories.

FL: At any rate, both young-earth and old-earth creationists (as well as other writers whose exact affiliations I don't know about) have in fact demonstrated repeatedly and convincingly that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are neither mythic nor mutually-exclusive nor contradictory. There is simply ONE creation account, and that account is given to us in a complementary NOT contradictory manner. Let the lurkers check out the facts and judge for themselves! FL :)

So what your saying FL by using those links is that to actually interpret the bible you have to use outside sources of information? Quite specifically the YEC account compares reading the story to other historical works. Now based on that we know that other historical works have all kinds of interesting issues to grapple with when it comes to interpretation.

FL,

You lose. A plain ready shows Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict.

If you deviate from a plain reading, as your links do, then there is plenty of room for modern evolutionary theory.

rog :)

FL, stop derailing threads.

It just isn’t particularly funny. Or the least bit convincing.

FL,

Whether or not Gen 1 and Gen 2 are mutually contradictory, YEC and OEC are, as are subdivisions within them, such as geocentrism and heliocentrism, old-earth-old-life and old-earth-young life.

But you knew that. And you know that at most only one can be right. Which makes all the others just as wrong as evolution, no matter how much political sympathy you have for their advocates.

This conflict is probably what Frank J was referring to; “True Believers” ™ of the inerrant Bible avoid–or try desperately to double-talk around–this contradiction.

— J. L. Brown

The coward hiding behind the username FL lied: "...both young-earth and old-earth creationists (as well as other writers whose exact affiliations I don't know about) have in fact demonstrated repeatedly and convincingly that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are neither mythic nor mutually-exclusive nor contradictory."

Glen Davidson:

It just isn’t particularly funny. Or the least bit convincing.

Moore’s just not looking at the big picture. It is funny to be putting out an “exposé” which has to be hidden from the general public as long as possible, and hidden from movie critics which could vouch for the veracity of any honest "exposé". Then too, it apparently manages to avoid the facts that supposedly could support their claims, while engaging in a heated rant about how a highly successful science is the equivalent of naziism and stalinism. It's the whole that's the joke, not its parts. The movie would be funny as the opposite of what an honest exposé would look like--if only it didn't take so long to tell the joke, and if the joke were not such an old one. Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/3yyvfg

Actual serious academic scholars agree that there are multiple (the “J,” “P” and “E” texts) different / mutually-exclusive / contradictory myths in the first two chapters of Genesis, pieced together from different versions of previous Bronze Age civilizations’ creation myths.

only myth

FL, stop derailing threads.

Ok. Stop feeding the trolls. Everyone please. These endless discussions about how Genesis does or does not present contradicting stories distract. Surely there are better issues to discuss than the creation myths found in so many different cultures and which were obviously a foundation for the writers of Genesis.

Let me ask you directly: is it okay for PT readers to respond to specific points(s) that evolutionist posters have *already* made within a given thread, or not?

So, to put what Flint eloquently said more succintly, Ben Stein and FL demonstrate why whatever any creationist says is, at best, extraordinarily suspect, and at worst, a baldfaced lie.

I mean, given as how Ben Stein trots out the rotten chestnuts of how "Darwinism" gave birth to Nazism and Stalinism while not even attempting to explain why none of Hitler's memoirs and speeches, or the memoirs of his confidants ever suggest that he so much as touched On the Origins of Species, or why Stalin's pet biologist, Lysenko, was a staunch opponent of Evolutionary Theory who denounced it, together with Modern Genetics as "The Whore of Capitalism," informed people get the impression that either 1) Ben Stein is lying through the skin of political bunghole, or 2) he's as criminally incompetent a researcher as Ann Coulter.

And then we have FL, who behaves just like Ben Stein, except only smarmier. I don't see why FL has any right to complain about mistreatment, as he reproduces pure smarm, and never bothering to give any truthful or coherent answers to any questions ever asked of him.

I may have simply missed it, but I didn’t see any mention of Coral Ridge Ministries. They are based in Florida, and they have been pushing this crap using stuff from the DI.

I noticed on their TV programs recently that they are in a major fund raising campaign and are expressing the need for millions of dollars in rather urgent terms. They seem quite concerned about the upcoming presidential election.

Does anyone know how much they are involved in this? I'm sure they would like to influence the election as much as possible. The timing may not be an accident.

Our little trolly FL is just the sort that Ben Stein and the DI frauds are aiming for.

They (DI and friends) know that they can't bamboozle people who are actually literate in the methods and findings of science. But FL is just what they're looking for. Ignorant. Credulous. And possibly voting age.

FL serves a purpose here, even if he probably doesn't realize it. He shows us just who DI is trying to manipulate in their war on science and reason.

Ben Stein, the doofus who couldn't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight, and FL . . . . soul mates.

Party on, Bruce Chapman. . . . . . .

More Stealth
I rec'vd an email today describing a conversation between an "atheist scientist professor" and a student.
It's well written although neither character is real-world -- I don't know many profs who would tout atheism to a student (especially so inanely) and the student knows more than most professors hope to see.
It concluded that I should pass on the message if it left a smile on my face. Of course, it's anti-evolution.
Does anyone know about this? I strongly suspect this came from the DI.
Does anyone have a good answer? I'm going to send one back -- to the effect that lots of religious people also accept evolution as a valid scientific tool, and lots of scientist are able to accept evolution and be religious too.

Does anyone know about this? I strongly suspect this came from the DI. Does anyone have a good answer?

WRT the two creation myths, here is something for FL to chew on:

We need only go back some sixty years, and we find that even grownup, highly educated people deny what took place in Nazi Germany. In spite of survivors testimonies, in spite of film and photos taken by the Germans themselves, in spite of large heaps of clothes, hair, bones.
Not even events that happened in our own times are accepted as true history.
When we take a closer look at our own, European History, we find that what we think we know about Napoleon, or the Vikings, are not quite what the facts really shows when we take a closer look.

Going two, three, four, or five thousand years back then means that our knowledge becomes rather thin. Contemporary literature becomes sparse; more and more inaccurate. History in those times was oral traditions about heroic deeds, catastrophes like the ‘Great Flood’, about crop failures and about the whims of the Gods. They were told by the campfire, coloured by the storytellers and reshaped to serve a moralizing purpose. They were passed on from man to man, from generation to generation before a scribe put his own version on parchment or clay tablets.
And we must realize that the book that we lean on for information about the earliest times originated in the same manner. Both with the Israelites and the semi-nomadic shepherding tribes in southern- and mid- Palestine, epics and stories about earlier heroes or “tribal fathers”, about tragedies and happenings. Events were connected with named heroes or “fathers”, just like our modern traditions recount stories about strong or wise men. And these stories were told and retold as fairytales within the tribe.

When tribes joined together, the epics, the stories became common tribal property. And the “tribal fathers” after whom the tribes were named, traditionally became “brothers”.

The 12 tribes of Israel had each their own founding father. When the tribes joined, the fathers became “brothers” in the mind of the people, and Jacob “Israel” became the father of them all.
The stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob originated as unrelated stories within the Semitic, semi-nomadic sheepherders in Palestine. But when these small tribes joined with the Hebrew that had migrated out of Egypt (a story of its own that actually may be a myth, but I will let that problem rest here), the stories again became incorporated in the common body of myths, whether referring to real events or persons, or not.

Thus, the Semitic tribal fathers became patriarchs for the entire nation that grew out of this.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob belonged to different tribes and were not related, but the stories grew together into a collection and the persons were tied together as members of the same family. Isaac became son of Abraham, with Esau and Jacob becoming Isaac’s sons. And Jacob became equipped with twelve sons, so the twelve tribes should be equal.

Into this storytelling old adventure stories also were incorporated, and they were told as being as credible as the heroic epics. The motif in the story about Joseph and the wife of Potifar for instance is copied from the Egyptian fairytale “The two Brothers”.
Of old an enmity existed between the semi-nomadic sheepherders and the Bedouins. In the production of myths, the sheepherders therefore made a story about how the Bedouins were descendants of a farmer that had fled because of murdering his brother. We recognize the story about Cain and Abel. They then equipped Adam and Eve with a third son, Set, who was made god-fearing and straight enough to be the one they themselves descended from.

In Canaan, drought was the enemy; high summer was the death of nature. But with autumn the rains came, and nature awakened to life again. The creation myth of the Canaanites therefore speaks of the dry, arid land that their God bless with rain and wells breaking forth.
Thus life was created on Earth. Contrary to that, in Babylon floods were the dangerous problem.Their creation myth, that also became known by the Israelites and incorporated into their folklore, therefore tells that it began with waters all over, then with land rising out of the water. The two creation myths are placed side by side in the bible and they are both equally true and believable.

Most likely, people in those times believed those stories as more than just stories. For them, it was real history that earth and heavens, man and animals suddenly were created. They were aware of the existence of other peoples with other gods, but they were not part of their own history and how they might have been created was of no concern to them. So therefore, there was no problem for Cain to find a wife.
Most of the myths in Genesis are older than the immigration of the Israelites. They had been part of the tribal traditions for a long time. Their concept of God also was quite different. The patriarchs knew gods like El-sjaddai and Elohim, and neither Abram, Isaac or Jacob knew anything about Moses’ new creation, Yahweh. According to 2. Mos. 3, Moses asked the new god what he should be called, and the god replied: “I am who I am.” The story leaves no doubt that it is a new, hitherto unknown god that is being introduced, but history has made him identical with the god of the patriarch’s. While more likely they had been family- or tribal gods, this new god was made the god of the Israeli nation, and theirs only. And in later history telling he became the god of the ancient myths and fairytales.

Surely there are better issues to discuss than the creation myths found in so many different cultures and which were obviously a foundation for the writers of Genesis.

— PvM

Rolf Aalberg:

WRT the two creation myths, here is something for FL to chew on:

...

According to 2. Mos. 3, Moses asked the new god what he should be called, and the god replied: “I am who I am.”

By my count, there's four or five posts (if you count Rrr quoting Rolf) that continue to address or refer to me in one way or another after PvM asked everybody "not to feed the troll."
These posts include several outright insults, I see.

And I notice that another two of those posts, simply go right back to discussing Genesis (and Exodus), even though PvM specifically said that such discussion was a "distraction" which was presumably why you weren't supposed to "feed the troll" in the first place.

I respect PvM, and if you check previous threads, I do NOT try to keep arguing once he says "don't feed the troll" (an ad-hom in itself), but c'mon guys.

As educated as you are, surely you've acquired enough common sense to see how your actions are looking at this point.

PvM, I simply request your permission to respond to those whose posts referred to me after your comment #142049. Seems fair.

FL :)

Mike wrote:

"Does anyone know how much they are involved in this? I’m sure they would like to influence the election as much as possible. The timing may not be an accident."

Come now, how could a few guys in Florida possibly influence a presidential election? If that were to happen we might be in all kinds of trouble.

FL: By my count, there's four or five posts (if you count Rrr quoting Rolf) that continue to address or refer to me in one way or another after PvM asked everybody "not to feed the troll." These posts include several outright insults, I see. And I notice that another two of those posts, simply go right back to discussing Genesis (and Exodus), even though PvM specifically said that such discussion was a "distraction" which was presumably why you weren't supposed to "feed the troll" in the first place. I respect PvM, and if you check previous threads, I do NOT try to keep arguing once he says "don't feed the troll" (an ad-hom in itself), but c'mon guys. As educated as you are, surely you've acquired enough common sense to see how your actions are looking at this point. PvM, I simply request your permission to respond to those whose posts referred to me after your comment #142049. Seems fair. FL :)

FL: PvM, I simply request your permission to respond to those whose posts referred to me after your comment #142049. Seems fair. FL :)

What's wrong with pursuing the discussion on After the Bar Closes or the Bathroom wall?

Check out our Sister site at Antievolution.org

even if their miserable lives depended on it.

Where is the original location of Eden?

FL: Actually, Stanton, it's somewhat flattering that you continue to mention my name in the same breath as Ben Stein. I'm not anywhere near *his* league, but it's a very good goal to shoot for.

even if their miserable lives depended on it.

Oh, the utterly abominable tabasco-sauce misery of being me! I am so ashamed!! But I do have one answer for you though.

Where is the original location of Eden?

Go find a quickie map of the Mideast. It can either be a Bible atlas or a Secular Atlas like Rand or Nat'l Geographic. Locate both the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. (Mesopotamia area.) Draw a reasonable small or moderate-size circle around the two of them, with the center kinda in between the two rivers. Your question is now answered. Regarding Eden, you now have the 'hood right in front of you!

Well, okay. Expose your well-kept secret to me; I'm listening. What exactly are you talking about? FL

Skeptic:

Well, okay. Expose your well-kept secret to me; I'm listening. What exactly are you talking about? FL

Let's see. You *did* notice the creation stories in Genesis Ch. 1 and Genesis Ch. 2 contradict each other, didn't you?

Robot from Futurama: "I will believe what I was programmed to believe!"

It will be a moderate amount of work, but an intellectually easy task, to refute the entire film line by line.

Hm, ever heard of RiffTrax?

the best way to deal with 'FL' would be to ignore him, he's understandably upset about his side's inability to come out on top in this 'controversy'(there ISN'T really a controversy, but anyway...), and sore losers like nothing better than to try and make petty, tedious trouble for the winner. Guys like him and Bill Dembski are cut from the exact same cloth. He might BE Dembski, for all we know. Hey, FL, why don't you explain to us how Jesus Managed to be dead for three days and nights between Friday evening and Sunday morning? That's exactly the sort of tedious, obscure technical point you and your kind like to squabble ENDLESSLY over, right?

**Cleanup cycle initiated***

OK, FL. Let's pretend that the Bible is science. Now, you say the Garden of Eden is between the Tigris and Euphrates, I suppose on the basis of the Biblical description. Fine. Got the map. There's the rivers. Now, if I go to, say, Answers in Genesis (or any of a number of other creationist web sites), I can find some rather interesting speculation on how things like the grand canyon formed after the flood, and all manner of geological formations and mountains, including coal beds and whatnot. Great reading. YEC's for years have realized that invoking a global flood to explain fossils and geological formations means some pretty serious forces. Most of this involves massive geological trauma, including the hypothesis that the continents motored along at phenomenal speeds, changing the face of the planet, lifting mountain ranges, subducting continental plates, depositing massive amounts of sediment all over the earth etc. So, with all of that catastrophic remodeling of the surface of the Earth, could you please elaborate on how you can find the Garden of Eden using a map and a "pre-flood" description? Maybe you could forward this to Ben Stein and have HIM explain it?

mplavcan --- The neatest explanation I have seen regarding the location of the Garden of Eden is the current Persian Gulf. During the last ice age the sea lowstand was about 120 meters before the current sea stand: the Persian Gulf was a series of lakes, ponds and rivers, altogether a pleasant place to live. As the waters rose over about 10,000 years leading to the start of the Holocene, the bands and tribes living there were forced upriver, being expelled from the garden.

This is even consistent with the Lord's angel in the east, guarding against a return of the expellees. And so the story grew in the telling and re-telling over the centuries of oral tradition...

Deniers of the Holocaust that happened in our 'age' is nothing folks.

There are still a fairly large group of folks who either think we found WMD in Iraq or that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. How is this?

You get enough people in authority to tell and retell a lie and it becomes historical truth.

For what it's worth, the ID crowd really doesn't give a rat's ass about creation. There bigger goal is an American Taliban, where they can burn homos like witches. Their minion are already at work softening the American psyche to the idea of torture. Wonder if you can torture the 'queer' out of people? They'd like to find out. I appreciate the great scientific smackdown that many exceptional people bring to the forum here, but the design crap is just an offshoot of a more insidious Christian Reconstructionist movement.

Enjoy.

Sorry, PvM, that was over the line. Even if it is true.