I guess I would have to see it in order to understand what they're talking about in this movie...  Are they trying to force ID back into classrooms as valid science?  Looks like someone needs to review the scientific method.  Isn't it just sad when scientists have to watch their words so closely though?  Whether they're for or against ID?  Reading some of those interviews with scientists, you'd think they were being grilled by the police- or by the media- whichever is worse.

(BTW, I could have happily gone the rest of my life without seeing Ben Stein in shorts!)

That's exactly what folks at institutions like the Discovery Center are trying to do, madkow. They lost their case in the SCOTUS when they tried to teach Creationism, so they just changed the name to Intelligent Design & claim that this so-called theory doesn't necessarily require God to be the "intelligent designer." The problem with this movie is that it does entwine religion with Intelligent Design, so it kind of blows their cover. Is God the designer, or isn't he?

The mistake biological scientists made, back when this nonsense first raised its ugly head in our local school boards, was to ignore their arguments as specious & not worth the effort to debunk. They should have faced it head on in the beginning. They finally realized this tactic wasn't going to work because the general public misunderstood the issue as a matter of free speech, or as a matter of salvation. I can't tell you how many people think that because the book of Genesis isn't literal, that means that God is fallible & the rest of the bible isn't relevant or true. What Christians who accept evolution as the way God created have to do is reach out to these misguided Evangelicals ans show them the way. As an atheist, they would never listen to people like me.

Evangelicals have to understand that evolution isn't a matter of faith. They also must realize that they are losing their children, once those kids realize they've been lied to. These folks think, if they're lying to me about science, what else are they lying about?

 "Looks like someone needs to review the scientific method."

With all respect "madkow2747", I think it looks more like someone needs to explain how they assume the scientific method in the first place. Those who believe we came about through random order, must account for induction. We use the inductive principle when we reason, when we engage in discourse and when we do anything to make our experience intelligible. You atheists assume a uniformity in nature just in dialouge, and debate. But what is your rational foundation for the inductive principle?

It's obvious that your worldview cannot account for it. "Well, that's the way it's always been", cries the atheist. Great philosophers like, Hume and Russell both already pointed  this out that you can't appeal to experience to prove the uniformity of nature. Why? Because the appeal to experience already assumes the uniformity of nature.

Secular science has no problem embedding the "intelligent curricula" of SETI, but they be dammed if Intelligent Design trickles in the classroom. What's the matter? Evolution seems to have a "corner" in this area. What's a little competition going to do really? As a God-fearing Christian, I have every right to raise a complaint that my tax-dollars are funding this myth of evolution. However, I don't mind it being taught in public schools. My son, a sophomore in high school, and his group of student athlete friends, actually raised questions about evolution to their biology teacher. She was impressed by their participation, but sad to say, not persuaded. I thought that is what education, not indoctrination, is all about. To learn. And one way of learning is raising counter-points.

Regarding those secular priests (scientists in the movie), no one forced them to appear in the movie. If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember what you said. Now, these defenders of the sacred cow, evolution, are now playing spin doctors as to what they actually said.—Steve http://thatsagreatquestion....

 Oh my!  Someone used "Imagine" without paying the appropriate royalties?  I refuse to associate with ANYONE who ever used Napster, as well.  Someone has to stand up for whatever corporation owns the Lennon songbook now, I suppose!

But you merely assert that there is no link between Darwin and the Nazis.  What is your evidence for this? 

Darwin's theory says that small differences and unique characteristics within a species provides a significant enough natural advantage to eventually result in the founding of a new species, better fitted to its environment than the species from which it sprang.  Hence the title of his book, Origin of the Species .

From this came the eugenics movement, the goal of which was to scientifically recognize and systematically advance those differences.  Reading the books of the quite openly racist eugenics writers of 1890 - 1930 today allows the modern reader no doubt as to the connection.  They read like Nazi tracts, because the Nazi's embraced those ideas. 

This does not imply that it was Darwin's intent, or that such racist claptrap reflected his personal views, of course, but ideas have consequences and that Darwin/Nazi nexus is pretty obvious if you are willing to look.  Don't take someone else's word for it - the books are out there, read the source material yourself. 

 Lakersteve writes: "As a God-fearing Christian, I have every right to raise a complaint that my tax-dollars are funding this myth of evolution." First, everyone who pays taxes can find something that their money is going to that they disagree with. I resent my tax dollars going to fund faith-based initiatives, other may resent their funding of the occupation of Iraq. That's the way our system works. Second, please provide evidence that evolution is a myth. That's your assertion, so it's up to you to provide proper facts to back it up.

Next, we get this little gem from Lakersteve: "Evolution seems to have a "corner" in this area. What's a little competition going to do really?" This is similar to the "teach the controversy" argument. First, there's no controversy among the biological disciplines when it comes to the basic theory of evolution. Those differences being examined in science are hardly appropriate for high school biology classes. There's enough to learn in high school without getting into the nuanced differences regarding punctuated equilibrium, for example. Second, there's plenty of educational subjects where "competition" exists. Would you have us teach both sides of the Holocaust? Holocaust deniers would welcome you into the fold, if that is true.

Finally, Lakersteve graces us with this thoughtful observation: "Regarding those secular priests (scientists in the movie), no one forced them to appear in the movie." All of the evolutionary biologists interviewed for this project were lied to in order for them to participate. They were told this documentary was called Crossroads: The Intersection of Science & Religion. They were lead to believe the production company was a different company than the one actually producing this film. Is this a Christian virtue, misleading people into participating in a project completely at odds with the way it was be portrayed? They were never given a chance to know the real motive behind this farce, even though many said they would have been interviewed anyway. Lying for Jesus isn't a good way to represent your faith, IMO.

PD, Yoko owns all of John's songs. She was never approached for approval, let alone paid the money she's owed for using his material. Why, you may ask? My guess is they knew she wouldn't allow it, so it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission, in their book. Sleazy comes to mind.

You also ask: "But you merely assert that there is link between Darwin and the Nazis.  What is your evidence for this?" To whom are you directing this question? Then you write: "are "false" is completely unsupported." I'm at a loss in understanding what you mean by this.

Just because Hitler may have misused some of the ideas Darwin proposed doesn't mean there's a necessity for evolutionary theory in order to give Hitler his power. He also misused certain ideas proposed by Christianity - does that mean that Christianity was a necessity for Hitler's rise to Power?

I'm curious to hear what part of "Imagine" (which happens to be one of the greatest songs ever written) they used in their movie.  It's a song that pretty much states that Religion has been a divisive tool with people. 

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

 http://www.richarddawkins.n...

From what I understand, Vader, the song is played while images of Nazi concentration camps & Stalinistic scenes are flashed on the screen. The film's producers & director were obviously trying to equate the notion of "no God" with the horrors of the Holocaust & Stalin's murderous endeavors.

 I've always enjoyed the "Imagine" lyrics.  They're just so dang happy.  Sad, but true, that religion causes almost all the wars (both hot and cold) in the world.  Oohchild- I think playing that song while showing images of the death camps is absolutely horrific.  Not many Atheists are out there killing people (ok, well maybe the Chinese to an extent, but that's another story).

Anything taught in a science class needs to have undergone some sort of scientific testing (read: held up to the scientific method).  This isn't rocket science.  Can ID hold up to scientific theory?  How are you even going to test something like that?  The current theory of evolution isn't perfect, but it's the best theory out there because most of it's tenets hold up against testing.  And one pivotal tenet, natural selection ("survival of the fittest"), is scientific law because it has passed testing.  Ever since Stanley Miller created his brown goo (artificially-created amino acids), we've been scientifically unraveling life's beginnings.  We're obviously not to the point where we can say what happened.  But ID is not explaining anything if it can't be replicated in experiments.

What is not part of evolution, and was never intended to be part of evolution, is so-called "social darwinism".  It is a misuse of the premises of evolution, and yes, sadly, it created eugenics.  Luckily, social darwinism is not proven- it's not even theory.  It's just BS, and anyone with a brain knows it.  Teaching about SETI and their goals and assertions is certainly valid science though.  It is taught where it belongs- in astronomy class, along with black holes, parallax, points of singularity, redshift, cosmic background radiation, and all sorts of really really cool stuff.  Put ID where it belongs- in Theology class.

Brava madkow, brava!

Now, on to Ben Stein. I just caught his interview driving home, on the Michael Medved radio show (yeah, and I listen to Hannity too. Wanna make something of it?)

;-)

Anyway, now I know Ben's gone over to the deep end. If I hadn't heard it with my own ears, I never would've believed it. He said that "Darwinism" (whatever that is) has huge, gaping holes in the theory. What does "Darwinism" have to say about gravity, or the laws of thermodynamics?

Excuse me?!?! Evolution has bugger-all to say about those things, because it's a theory involving biology & genetics, not physics or any other scientific discipline. That's like asking Einstein to explain the geologic record!

This is absolutely mind-boggling. Can't....think....please....help!!!

Oohchild, my questions were directed at you.  You stated that there was no connection between Darwin and the Nazis in your founding post. I addressed that in some detail.  

If you want to address what I wrote, please do so, otherwise I'm over to pound my head against Jimr.

Madkow, as for the notion that 'religion causes almost all the wars"; wars, including the slaughter of the so-called "religious" wars of the 17th century were fought for the most secular of reasons, namely the extension of princely and national domains and influence.  Catholic France aided Lutheran Sweden to keep the 100-years war going in Germany, for example.  

But get your head out of the past.   I dare you to cite the religious differences that started World War I, World War II, the Russian Revolution, subsequent Stalin-led genocides, the Chinese Revolution, and its following Cultural Revolution.  Between all of them, several hundred of millions of people died, more than have been killed in any wars of any other centuries. 

Ah yes PD, I see you edited your post, but I think I addressed your concerns anyway - if you missed it, I'll repeat:

Just because Hitler may have misused some of the ideas Darwin proposed doesn't mean there's a necessity for evolutionary theory in order to give Hitler his power. He also misused certain ideas proposed by Christianity - does that mean that Christianity was a necessity for Hitler's rise to power?

Beisdes, I wrote in my founding post: [This movie] mistakenly links Charles Darwin with Nazis & the holocaust. I did not write there was no connection between Darwin & Nazis, as you claim, but that the links made in this movie are mistaken.

Nice try, though. Do you accept evolution as the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet? If not, care to offer your take on it?

;-)

oohcild......get your facts straight: Stein is a Jew, not a christian. He is also not considered a very religious Jew, more than likely Reformed if anything. And as far as Darwin's science influencing Hitler, Stalin and the pseudo-science of Eugenics and Planned Parenthood, how about some intellectual honesty from you for a change? The propaganda of Hitler's Third Reich was all about eugenics, which is obviously Darwinian. Get real. Jeff

That modern eugenics sprang directly from Darwin is a simple historical fact.   The very term "Eugenics" was introduced by Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton. Following Darwin's publication in 1859, Galton wrote Hereditary Talent and Character, and in 1871 Darwin wrote The Descent of Man, and Selection in Regards to Sex in which he addressed his cousin's work and applied his theory directly to humanity.

Read it for yourself, and judge if it would be out of place at a Nazi meeting:

"We civilised men.. do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick .... There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands... Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

And this:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

 sowhat (Jeff), I never claimed Stein was a Christian, sowhat does his religion have to do with anything? This movie is obviously geared towards the ID/Creationist crowd, who are mostly Evangelical Christians. Stein himself admitted yesterday that his main concern in doing this movie was to advance the idea that "Darwinism" = the Holocaust, which is patently untrue. As I pointed out before a couple of times, just because a murderous thug uses some ideas put forth by Darwin in advancement of his own agenda doesn't mean that Darwin was responsible for the Holocaust, which is one of the ideas proposed by this film. If that were the case, then you could just as well say that Christianity was responsible for the Holocaust. Totally absurd, in both cases.

PD, my argument above equally applies to eugenics. Just because someone uses some of the ideas put forth by Darwin in order to advance a detestable practice like eugenics, doesn't mean that Darwin was responsible for that practice. Darwin was a product of his times, which unfortunately included quite a bit of racism.

Besides, evolutionary theory has advanced quite a bit in the 150 years. Science builds upon current knowledge, and has no problem cutting away or changing current thinking as new evidence is discovered. Religion, unfortunately, cannot claim the same.

Your change of accusation, from stating that the movie "mistakenly links Charles Darwin with Nazis" to  stating that the movie claims "Darwin was responsible for the Holocaust" entirely changes the meaning of the statement it claims to restate.  That is a favorite tactic of the propagandist.  

I never claimed that Darwin was "responsible" for the holocaust, I pointed out that the Darwin's idea and the eugenic practices of the Nazi's were "linked".  As I said, this is simple historical truth.

Which doesn't mean that Darwin was wrong about evolution.  The unfortunate truth for you is that "Someone" didn't use some of Darwin's ideas to advance eugenics, Darwin himself did!  

Finally, Darwin was a "product of his times"?  That's your response to his horrific statements?  It is certainly an understated response to Darwin's certainty that the "civilized races" would "exterminate, and replace, the savage races".  

One might as well claim that Hitler was a "product of his times", which he most certainly was - and it was time informed and formed by the extremely influential ideas of Charles Darwin. 

The Origin of the Species is quite interesting, btw.  You should read it.