Neil deGrasse Tyson , the new host of the PBS-TV program "NOVA scienceNOW", is director of the Hayden Planetarium in the Rose Center For Earth and Space at the American Museum of Natural History. He is the recipient of seven honorary doctorates and the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal.

http://beyondbelief2006.org/

("An entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system" made me LOL.)

Coincidentally he mentioned this Sift - The End Of The Milky Way. Check it out.

I think I'll *NSFW for the disturbing aborted babies. On which I feel the camera lingers on for a little too long.

This is just silly. There is no God because the universe is dangerous and bad things happen?

That is just silly.
There is a God because the universe is pretty and nice things happen?

I just swapped out your submit code theo, the editing is not the same, but it also conforms to rule #1.

NO SELF LINKING

So because bad things happen... there is no God? Wow that's a bit of a jump for me. Are all atheists such pesimists? One fact remains; No one can prove nor disprove the existance of God. It's a question of faith not logic.

i agree with you gorgonheap. my problem is using that faith to determine what my rights and freedoms are.

but i think you are missing the point. his point is about the failure rate of life and the very very small limits to which we are confined. and i would add that backup organs are also something else i would add that would add to that survival rate. oh and the spinal cord is by far the worst way to protect something that has no backup. the disc's are too small and can very easily be broken and slip over time or with enough impact. the interlocking disc "idea" is great but make the interlock bigger and with more over lap. oh and an easy one teeth replacing why only have 2 sets of teeth why not 1 new set every 5 years. if i was designed i'm not impressed cause i know i could do it better especially the electrical system.

I'm hardly "self-linking" as it is not my original content.

And gorgonheap, see my previous comment.
No, no one can prove or disprove the existence of ANYTHING - but we can sure discuss how likely it is.
So - an Invisible Man with a White Beard who Lives Above the Clouds and Watches Everything We Do..?
Not likely.

Unlikely things happen constantly.

Also, this idea that there is no design because "I could do better" seems to me to prove something about the human brain and human conciousness being the product of an intelligence. How is it possible that we have the capacity to "do it better" than nature if we are nothing more nor less than a product of purely natural forces?

I'm hardly "self-linking" as it is not my original content.

I know you weren't trying to promote yourself theo, it's just a gray area we can't really afford to walk around in. Makes it harder to smite the true astroturfing with resounding authority.

First of all, wallace's intellect is truly making my head spin.
Like, say, when you're really nauseous.

Secondly, the site needs to be crystal clear as to what is "self-linking" and what isn't.
If I see something that I think is Sift-worthy (and the votes say this is) and I don't create it myself, I should upload it myself and link it here.
If it isn't obvious as to whether the video is self-created, then do what you did and go to the YouTube source. Don't waste everyone's time by being the Self-Link Police on something as obviously second/third/fourth/fifth-hand as this.

If I could interject here a moment...Krupo posted a self-link message a while back:
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=9231
Hopefully that will clear things up (or not!).

as for the vid, God may be a lousy engineer, but I bet He could spell 'crocodiles' (1:55)

i have to admit ... i never thought about relocating my entertainment center ... it's quite handy where it is now!!

wallace if i would do a better job at designing human beings why not worship me or any other functioning adult with a grasp of biology and anatomy. Why worship a god if he does a half-assed job on creating you for that matter why even bother if he cant do better than us. that certain starts to put limits on an all knowing and all seeing man in the magic sky. thats why theo47 is laughing at your logic because you just committed blasphemy and your fellow believers 400 years ago would have burnt you at the stake for it.

"So because bad things happen... there is no God?"

No, the argument is that if there is a designer of the universe, he/she/it is anything but intelligent. He's basically engaging in a new line of attack against intelligent design. One of the premises underlying intelligent design is that life and universe is too complex and well constructed to merely be the accidental outcome of random forces, hence there must have been a designer. This guy is responding by saying that life and the universe is anything but well designed; in fact, it is so poorly designed that any halfway decent engineer could do a much better job at designing the universe than God did. Given such a poorly constructed universe, it is much more reasonable to suggest that the universe as we know it really is an accidental outcome of random processes.

That's a good clip. Scottishmartialarts has nailed it, it's not that bad things mean no God, it's that things really aren't very intelligently designed at all.

I am surprised that anyone would consider the arguments made in this clip as well thought out. Consider the warrants and premises for nearly every aspect of his speach, and you realize you have to make some fairly irrational assumptions in order to make this argument.

I would add too, that for every less than perfect design characteristic, there are many absolutely amazing and remarkable ways in which the universe and the human are desiged. There are aspect of the cellular workings in humans,or the processing capabilities of the human brain, that no team of engineers ever have been able to design something even close to them. So this begs the question, at what level of perfection do we need in order to acknowledge a designer that is intelligent.

It is funny how when you listen to much of the atheists arguments, it can stregthen your belief in God. I myself became a theist by reading atheist text trying to argue against my christian friends. It didn't take long to realize that my arguments were weak and riddles with biased presuppositions.

The only rational thing at that point was to acknowledge HIM. And since I have done that, my life has been remarkably blessed and I am so thankful that I now know HIM.

That's not an argument you just made, tgeffeney, and I think you know that.

I don't begrudge anyone's beliefs in God, Allah, or Santa Claus -- whatever you need to get yourself through the day -- but when you start calling it science or using to oppress people, then that's when you & I are gonna have a disagreement.

But did you become a theist because the atheists were as empty, pompous and smug as the speaker in this clip? I don't begrudge you a little cultural theism to avoid hanging out with blowhards.

Perhaps God (SHE) is the happy and mad designer of evolutionary biology and quantum physics. Perhaps quantum physics and evolutionary biology led to a point where bipeds were unduly, wrongly, and sickly fascinated with HER.

My main problem with the political farce that is Intelligent Design is that, in the classroom, creationism and evolutionary theory have pedogogical cross-purposes. One is trying to fill the gaps, while the other is merely asking me to have a little faith in the gaps. To pretend that Intelligent Design is a form of science or a counter-theory to evolution seems to me to be disingenuous at best.

And science (though really just a church that places its supreme faith in
provable or calculable sensory evidence) is the study of a particular method applied over physical evidence.

And science (though really just a church that places its supreme faith in provable or calculable sensory evidence)

You do know that's stupid, right?

So is the scientific method a foundational belief system or is it something else? Is there a greater claim on truth that Science lays claim to, apart from calculable and measurable evidence? I also prefer science to magic, but both methods require skepticism and doubt.

If you try to sell me on the magical or transcendental powers of Hawking, Newton, or Einstein, then I am going to revolt. However, I am in total agreement with your "start calling it science or using to oppress people" statement.

I find that a few of the atheists in this forum often treat mother Science like Fundies treat the Holy Bible. Founts of unassailable and absolute truth. Rubbish.

i used to think of 'god' as someone playing an RPG style video game. you have a certain amount of 'base points' that you are able to distribute across several categories.
humans obviously rank higher in the 'intelligence' stat and low in the 'armor' stat. (or armour stat, for you brits out there ) whereas the points for say, an ant (sorry ant) are distributed much higher to the armor side.
i think our reasoning and reactionary systems are absolutely amazing, but i've always thought we were too soft and fleshy for our own good. one balances out the other though, as we should be able to use our brains to protect our bodies, rather than a hardwired reaction to an external stimulus or an exoskeleton.

The original joke (or at least one version of it):


There were three engineers in a bar having a couple of drinks and brooding about what kind of engineer God is.
"Of course God is a Mechanical Engineer," said the Mechanical Engineer, " look at the human skeleton, it's a marvel of joints, linkages, support and it gives such free movement to the body."
" No way, God's an Electrical Engineer", piped up the Electrical Engineer," just think about the brain and the nervous system, it's an incredibly vast and complex electrical masterpiece!"
"You're both wrong," said the Civil Engineer, "God's a Civil Engineer!”
“No way,” The others chorused, “how could God be a Civil Engineer?”
“Well, think about it,” the civil engineer replied, “what other engineer would run a waste water line through a recreational area?"

I have to say, while theo47 and his crowd continue to make me faintly embarrassed to be nonreligious, this is an amusing piece. It's not meant to be a deeply thought-out argument - it's a simply-sketched bit of amusement for people who actually know a bit of science.

It's specifically attacking a lot of creationist/intelligent design arguments, including those based on the strong anthropomorphic principle - the claim that the physical laws of the universe seem somehow designed to create Life As We Know It. But, as this guy points out, most of the universe doesn't really seem to have anything to do with the creation of life, and the universe seems nearly infinitely hostile to it.

It's not an attack on religion or even some conceptions of God as the First Mover who kicked the universe into motion, but on the psuedo-scientific rationalizations of creationism called "intelligent design".

Theo47, I don't understand you, you're being just as bad as the creationists, first your aggressive stance makes anyone who is an atheist look unreasonable. You don't believe in discussion or persuasion via reasoned debate, you just possess one view and everyone must have the same view or their wrong and thus 'stupid'.

This exactly why it's only recently with people like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins has atheism gained a larger foothold, because at least they can discuss such topics without resorting to petty insults. The moment you talk down to people, is the moment they stop listening to you. Irregardless of how right you think you are.

The fact is I believe in science and scientifically proven phenomenon via causality or other fundamental laws of the universe. However you cannot say that our science at this time means we understand everything perfectly. Look at how the understanding of our solar system evolved as new technology progressed. How are understanding of radiation and atomics have wildly change, as so has electricity. A few decades ago we did not know how the sun produced energy, but now we understand fusion and such. The fact is science is always progressing with new knowledge, before we thought life was impossible until in specific environmental bars, now we know that life is more abundant in places we thought it would not survive (Yellowstone/Arctic).

If you think scientifically and sociologically; it's easy to see how religion would evolve in a primitive culture, our ancestors had to derive an understanding of the world, so they made it in the context that could be understood at the time, be it nature worship in early times when we were more humble, or deity worship as time progressed and finally into deity worship in our image (Jesus Christ).

Technological progress over time then had allowed to reach for more profound understandings of the world. This will change over time, religions will dilute progressively and combine or fade, as did the religions of Ancient Greece, Egypt and others. New religions will arise, look at scientology, kabalah, new age and universalism. Science emerged from the inadequacies in explaining the world via religion. Some people's need for religious ritualism will always exist. This process will take time. Religion doesn't just fade over night. It's happening decade by decade, one of the largest initiatives undertaken by the Vatican is to accept science into its religion in order to keep up with the times.

Lastly I wanted to mention something with regards to 'intelligent design', one of the foundations of intelligent design is that there is a great debate amongst scientists about whether or not evolution occurred. There is no such debate, evolution and Darwinism take center stage. ID's entire argument falls apart with that information. If still unconvinced see this.

"my crowd". Heh.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
I'm sorry if I'm not coddling people with childish beliefs.
If we want to attribute everything we cannot yet explain scientifically to an Invisible Man Above The Clouds, then we might as well call your cellphone the Magic Speakerbox.

This video still links back to Theo47 on youtube, as do the others that benjee commented:

“You have a disturbing number of self-links, Theo47:
Stupid Design: God Is A Lousy Engineer
Bill Maher > David Blaine
If fallen soldiers came back to life and voted...
Novak + Cheney + Rove = Armageddon”

*blog as the rules say:

1. Please don't self link. While you may see this site as a great way to promote a project you are working on, it would be bad for our content if everyone just put up videos of them and their friends doing random things. If you think that the project you've put together is truly amazing and we must see it, please email us. We'll take a look at it and if we think it's really great too, we'll add it for you. If you skip this step your account will be deleted. Hey it's harsh, but it's harsh love.

Sending this video to Sift Talk for discussion (sent by gold star member nickyp)

Are there double standards here on the sift?

apparently so ...

Smells of elitism to me (especially after hearing the rumour of a free upgrade given out).

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Oh damn - being non-confrontational, I don't treasure these moments. So, this looks to be a very divisive issue. Here's what I'm going to do:

I'm going to *discard this video - because Theo, it's not like you haven't been warned.

Next I'm going make a post to open a discussion on whether self-links should include videos that you upload to your account.

Then I'm going to place a poll on the sidebar of Sift Talk, but not until we've all had a chance to discuss it.

Theo, if the vote goes your way, I'll even retroactively *undiscard your vid.

Discarding this post (discard called by gold star member dag)