No intelligence (nor integrity) in this movie! - It's kava time! - oohchild's Blog - Tehachapi News

Apr 17, 2008 at 05:04 PM : I guess I...

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!)

Apr 18, 2008 at 08:04 AM : That's exactly...

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?

Apr 18, 2008 at 09:04 AM : "Lo...

"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.blogspot.com

Apr 18, 2008 at 09:04 AM : Oh...

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.

Apr 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM : Lakersteve...

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?

Apr 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM : I'm curious to...

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

Apr 18, 2008 at 11:04 AM : http://www.r...

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2477,n,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.

Apr 18, 2008 at 03:04 PM : I've always...

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.

Apr 18, 2008 at 05:04 PM : Brava madkow, brava! ...

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!!!

Apr 18, 2008 at 08:04 PM : Oohchild, my questions...

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.

Apr 18, 2008 at 09:04 PM : Ah yes PD, I see you...

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

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?

;-)

Apr 18, 2008 at 11:04 PM : ...

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

Apr 19, 2008 at 09:04 AM : That modern eugenics...

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."

Apr 19, 2008 at 09:04 AM : sowhat (Jeff), I...

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.

Apr 19, 2008 at 11:04 AM : Your change of...

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.

Apr 19, 2008 at 03:04 PM : The school vouchers...

The school vouchers would have helped with this problem, then us religous conservative folks could have sent our kids to schools that teach what our kids should learn, then our hard earned tax money could support the school of our choice.

Apr 20, 2008 at 12:04 AM : Progresso, I have my...

Progresso, I have my head quite firmly in the present when I say that religion causes almost all wars. Perhaps I should have clarified: Religion causes almost all wars today, in the here and now. Find a world map that shows religious boundaries and find a map that shows current conflicts. Compare them. Africa (right across the Sahel- Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan...) , the Middle East (need I say more), Kashmir, Chechnya, the former Yugoslavia... (Yes, it mostly follows the lines of Islam, draw what conclusions you may.) I can certainly think of an approximate 6 million people that were murdered because of their religion during WWII, as well as plenty of the people murdered by Stalin. Christians and many followers of other religions in China during the Communist Revolution- exterminated or exiled. Our own country is involved in a war with Islamic extremists. How could you possibly say religion doesn't cause war? Even if it isn't the direct cause, it is always in the background.

Apr 20, 2008 at 04:04 AM : Progresso--we would...

Progresso--we would have less war if we had less religious zealots. It is religion that the majority of wars being fought have stem from. By zealots it can mean any religion leaders --Muslim, Christianity etc. that believe their god is the right god and don't have tolerance toward others. This is why there needs to be a complete separation of church and state.

Apr 20, 2008 at 02:04 PM : If the Iraq...

If the Iraq War is being fought to advance Christianity against Islam, we're certainly going about it in an odd way, since 2/3 of Iraq's Christian population has been forced to flee the country without a peep from our leaders. Also passing without a word of national concern has been our ally Saudia Arabia's denial of the most basic religious freedoms to their Christian "guest workers", including pious Christians of all nations. The only religion those wars and relations serve is the religion of manna and power.

Madkow, your citation of the religious differences that initiated WWI, WWII, and others, as I asked, is notably absent, wherever the firm location of your your head.

Apr 20, 2008 at 03:04 PM : I never said the...

I never said the Iraq war is being fought to advance Christianity, because that isn't true. Iraq is it's own conflict and I'm not addressing it with this assertion. But why were we attacked on Sept.11, 2001? That was Islamic extremists attacking their "enemies". If you can't see the religious extremism that has smoldered and ignited conflict within the Middle East for centuries, I'm afraid you may be totally blind. I didn't cite religious differences that initiated WWI, WWII, etc., because they were mainly political conflicts- albeit with devestating consequences for most non-Christian religions in the area, and to Christians to a more limited degree. You can't possibly deny that the Jews were murdered because they were Jewish. Also, the Holocaust set off the exodus of the remaining European Jews to Israel (who were welcomed there by the British who controlled the area), which began the long, disturbing history of Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East, and Middle East-United States conflict by extention of US support for Israel, among other factors.

Though I clarified my statement to speak exclusively about current wars, you still ask about wars that happened nearly a century to a half-century ago. Perhaps the World Wars are still ongoing on your mind, but to the rest of the world they are long over. When we look at conflict today, we are mainly looking at the places mentioned in my previous post, especially Africa, where millions die and are displaced because of religious war. But the world likes to turn a blind eye to it. Why? Perhaps the leader of Rwanda was correct when he said that to the Western powers, Africa is simply not interesting enough.

Apr 20, 2008 at 06:04 PM : I've...

I've discussed the intellectual underpinnings for the holocaust in some detail in this thread, Madkow. The Jews were slaughtered with others in an advancement of the quite scientific theory of eugenics, not as part of a religious conflict.

Your post is incoherent. You dismiss wars within living memory that killed hundreds of millions of people as being "a century or a half-century ago", even though I was responding to your statement that "religion causes almost all wars", which surely depends upon a time period to test its truth or falsity.

So, after you leave out the biggest wars of all time, and the wars that are happening now, and whichever other ones you want to leave out, you're left with what? The Sudanese Civil War and Rwanda? Fine, what was the religious basis for the Rwandan slaughter? And what is the religious basis for the Sudanese conflict where ethnic-Arab Muslims are purging African Muslims from Darfour?

As for 9/11, Bin Laden didn't run his planes into Saint Patrick's Cathedral, he ran them into the World Trade Center. For all his evil, his goal is less the defeat of Christianity, than the defeat of the modern world of trade, finance, and cultural imperialism that defines the West and which aggressively exports its crass commercialism to the destruction of the traditional ways of life he champions. It is a collision of cultures, yes. But unless Money and Trade is our God, it is not a collision of religions.

Which brings me to the point - culture clash is the cause of wars, not religion. Historically, to the extent that religion defines cultures, the lines of culture and religion are coincident which can lead to the false conclusion you have repeated. But irreligious societies, and those not defined by religion have cultures too, and contrary to what you claim, champions of those cultures, including atheists, will fight as hard as anyone to protect them or impose them on others.

Apr 20, 2008 at 07:04 PM : Believe what you want,...

Believe what you want, hon. No one is going to convince you otherwise.

Apr 20, 2008 at 08:04 PM : http://reducedmass.c...

http://reducedmass.com/2008/04/19/rapid-large-scale-evolution-observed-ben-stein-cries/

Apr 22, 2008 at 11:04 AM : Looks like the...

Looks like the producers' continued with their lies in order to get some folks to participate in this project. Criminy, I can't believe anyone can excuse this kind of dishonesty in order to further the Creationist agenda.

Regarding the use of a song by The Killers, "All These Things That I've Done":

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2477,n,n

"What they authorized was a documentary about 'academic freedom in schools', not the film that the producers produced.

They contacted the producers of the film to ask that the song be removed but it is too late. Unfortunately it was misrepresented to them when the request came through to use it. Add this band to a long line of people who were misled by the producers of this film."

Interesting article, Scott. The problem is you can't get a straight answer when you ask these folks to define evolution. The process described in your article is dismissed as "microevolution" - variation within 'kind." Except they won't tell you what a "kind" is. They'll point to this article and say "it's still two kinds of lizard. You never see a lizard giving birth to a bird!" Apparently, Noah just had one lizard "kind" on the Ark. All the different species of lizard around today "mutated" from that one lizard pair, just a few thousand years ago. I know, it's crazy, but it seems to make sense to them.

How come all of these one-time posters here aren't defending Creationism/ID? You drive through here claiming all kinds of assertions (evolution is a myth, for example), but you don't back it up. Just like this travesty of a movie can't back up its claims. Pitiful, really.

Apr 22, 2008 at 11:04 AM : oohchild, this reminds...

oohchild, this reminds me of all the Micheal Moore movies that he has made that all the liberals love, but have been filled with mostly falsehoods and distortions, dosent feel good does it?, to know there are people with their own agenda out there making movies with lies and distortions and promoting them as facts, when they are easliy disproven, but no one wants to hear the truth, " I cant believe anyone would excuse his kind of dishonesty just to further his own political agenda", Hollywood just gives him Oscars and accolades, this movie will surely bomb at the box office, dont worry, people have their own faith and stick with it because it gives them comfort, it dosent matter what Hollywood says or anyone else,

Apr 22, 2008 at 12:04 PM : What has Michael Moore...

What has Michael Moore presented as fact that has been disproven? Let's see, in "Roger and Me" the point of this documentary was that a greedy corporation doesn't care about the working class of a small town in Michigan. True. In "Bowling for Columbine" he wanted to demonstrate how America's fixation with fear and paranoia has bred a violent culture in our country. True. In "Farenheit 911" he wanted to demonstrate that George W. Bush is a bozo. That's true. In "Sicko" he wanted to show that our national healthcare system needs some fixing. That's true. There's a reason why Michael Moore continues to make award winning documentaries. There's a reason why he's the most successful documentary filmmaker in the history of cinema and there's a reason why lot of people like to watch them. They're great commentary and great entertainment.

Apr 22, 2008 at 01:04 PM : According to reports...

According to reports & reviews, the director of this movie used a lot of Michael Moore's techniques - quick cuts to TV show images, cartoons, and an "everyman" interviewer (Ben Stein) with low-key delivery. The consensus is Expelled is all the worse for it.

Starbucks1, show me one instance where Michael Moore lied to participants about the nature of his films. Show me one time where Michael Moore stole material for inclusion in one of his projects.

These are supposedly Christian producers, & Ben Stein holds himself out to be a devout Jew. How is this not lying for religion?

Apr 22, 2008 at 02:04 PM : The Truth will set you...

The Truth will set you Free, not that this will change your mind oohchild, but Moore is widely known for his twisting of facts and outright lies, cmon, you know that, this is old news, the difference here is, the media and Hollywood embrace Moore and his lies, this movie will not go anywhere,it will tank, think how you would feel if The media embraced this movie like they did moores lies?, we would have to put you on suicide watch!,

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1099142634.shtml

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_awful_truth_about_sicko/

Apr 22, 2008 at 03:04 PM : Then it should be easy...

Then it should be easy for you to answer my query:

Starbucks1, show me one instance where Michael Moore lied to participants about the nature of his films. Show me one time where Michael Moore stole material for inclusion in one of his projects.

Apr 22, 2008 at 03:04 PM : read thru the links I...

read thru the links I posted here oohchild, its all there, I do recall how he seemed to dupe Charlton Heston into a interview that Heston ended up walking out on, things like that, and look at this, http://www.cinemablend.com/celebrity/Michael-Moore-Misused-Military-Material-339.html and this, http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/michael_moore_being_sued_for_big_fat_lie_in_fahren/

look , I agree with you on this movie your talking about here, it will bomb, who really cares, hardly anyone will see it, but everyone seems to agree that at best, Moore is a dishonest filmmaker, but he was embraced by the media, thats the difference, they ran with his lies, are you telling me that you are the last one in the country to believe everything he says?, say it isnt so!!,

Apr 22, 2008 at 03:04 PM : Well, I've been...

Well, I've been here a lot more than once, so maybe you didn't mean me, oochild, but as for folks who are "claiming all kinds of assertions" but "don't back it up", you are leading the way, by far.

But why should I discuss evolution with you, anyway? Is it a subject in which you have some special expertise? Have you read the source liturature, including Origin of the Species? Judging by your unwillingess to accept that Darwin was a Social Darwinist, I doubt if you even realized he had written The Descent of Man. What is your idea of evolution based on - your freshman Biology course, and a Richard Dawkins screed? Is it even a subject I care about? No, as a Christian, it does not matter to me exactly how, or to what timetable, God put things together.

So why does evolution mean so much to you?

Hmmm....allow me to speculate here...as I channel the oochild thought process....

If God exists, Atheism is Wrong. I don't wanna be wrong.. these people believe in God .... saying evolution didn't happen... this movie must suck, they ripped off Yoko...darn, I'm off track....lemme see here, Darwin said that he killed God, therefore, if I believe him, God does not exist...But Darwin was an a-hole...man, wish I hadn't Googled him, freaking Dasani....well, there's another a-hole.....some rock group nobody knows signed a release....must have been lied to....gotta get back on track here....boy, I hate bible-thumpers...and Stein...jewish bible thumper.....

Apr 22, 2008 at 03:04 PM : So Starbucks1, you...

So Starbucks1, you claim that Michal Moore lies but decline to even show me one. You claim that Heston was lied to, but can't provide the evidence to back this up. BTW, your links are blocked for me. I couldn't comb through them, looking for the proof you need to provide, even if I were so inclined. Just cut & paste one paragraph showing that Michael Moore lied to an interview subject, or stole copyrighted material.

I've shown evidence about the producers of Expelled & how they lied to participants to get them in the movie, & I've shown where they stole material for use in their movie, rather than going through appropriate channels. Now it's your turn.

PD, I'm basically done with the Darwin/Holocaust connection. If Darwin was responsible for Hitler & therefore this fact should negate his teachings, then Christianity is equally responsible for Hitler & its teachings should be equally negated. Now, answer my previous question to you: do you accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation for life on this planet? I'll keep waiting fo rthe answer.

[spam code: FLRPY]!!!

Apr 22, 2008 at 05:04 PM : Oohchild, note the...

Oohchild, note the edits above. Of course, it was you, not Starbuck1, to whom it was meant to be directed.

Apr 22, 2008 at 05:04 PM : So you're...

So you're "done" with the Darwin/Holocaust connection, oohchild? Lets review our exchange:

You claimed that this movie "mistakenly links Charles Darwin with Nazis & the holocaust".

I pointed out that Darwin and Eugenics and the Nazi's were linked, and that this recent history is easily proven.

You responded by claiming that someone had misused Darwin's ideas to promote Social Darwinism.

I cited Darwin's own writings to prove that he was a Social Darwinist himself.

And now, you're "done", but not without dishonestly implying that I have claimed that the ugly facts of the man and his movement should "negate" his teaching.

I made no such statement. To the contrary, I specifically stated the opposite - that the sad truth of his movement and the ugly logic of his science had NO relation to the truth of falsity of his scientific claims. Your representation otherwise springs from either dishonesty or obtuseness.

Apr 23, 2008 at 01:04 AM : I'd be done with...

I'd be done with it too. You spend more time and energy attempting to disclaim other peoples opinions rather than providing evidence and rational explanations for your own views. As such your views are so far pretty much irrelevant. Oochild made some pretty convincing arguments. I don't see any convincing responses to her intelligent proposals. Your "link" between Darwinism and the Nazi's is debatable at best. You link and site sources that are in no way a direct line of mainstream or modern thought on Darwin's theories by people much more accreditable and much more established than you. The eugenics people are considered out in left field at best and are really ancient history at this point. You obviously have very little grasp or understanding of the scientific method nevermind the ability to differentiate between radical propaganda and what is considered scientific truth. Every single response you have made to Oochild shows that you really do not have a grasp of why the scientific method works and why it holds more credence than "testimonies of faith".

As well, if you know anything about Darwin at all, you would know he was initially a believer in the literal truth of the bible. He was "on your side" initially. It was a very personal and difficult choice for him to question and eventually discount his beliefs based on the evidence he discovered. The big deal is that he had an open mind, was a believer in the scientific method and was willing to look at the facts and come to an opinion beyond or different what he initially believed. That is where you, and folks like you, do not measure up and why you are frequently discounted outside your own peers. You do not have the ability, despite all your apparently intelligent discourse, to come to a conclusion that contradicts what you believe. This is called a closed mind. Anyone could argue with you and prove countless times their own point of view and yet you would discount it based on your beliefs. That is the difference between a fanatic and a scientist. A scientist will readily discount his theory and take up another if it proves to be more viable or more accurately conforms to observation. A religious fanatic will not, irregardless of the facts, and irregardless of the fact that there is no evidence to what they preach. This is fundamentally why the scientific method works and why religion is dying in the modern age. Religion is dying slowly but inevitably because the younger minds know better and are being brough up in an environment where its encouraged to question. And you can rail against that fact all you like. But it doesn't change the fact that religion is going the way of the dodo (I would argue due to evolution by the way) and I welcome that new age, even if I might not be alive when they teach religion as an artifact of culture and history. The future will laugh at such a quaint notion the same way we laugh at the quaint notions that there was a goddess of love called Aphrodite, or a god of the sea called Neptune, or a god of all gods called Zeus, and so on.

I obviously don't know you personally, but I feel pretty confident after reading what you write, even watching you argue against that Jim characte that you are on the same level as him. You just have different radical views. You put the blinders on and can't truly make a definitive argument for your own views. In fact you can't argue against that Jim character because he doesn't take your bait and give you something to chop down. Your entire viewpoint hinges on being able to attack other people's views. You are the Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. In any case, thats my take. I might be wrong, but I doubt it. ;)

Apr 23, 2008 at 02:04 AM : And while I'm at...

And while I'm at it:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2478,Sexpelled-No-Intercourse-Allowed,RichardDawkinsnet

Apr 23, 2008 at 06:04 AM : oohchild, I knew I...

oohchild, I knew I would not convince you of the Truth about Moore, apparently you refuse to see the forest because of the trees in front of you, thats fine, why the links are blocked for you I dont know, but the truth is easliy found about Moore, its like looking for corruption stories about the Clintons, there everywhere, just some people choose not to believe them, but anyway, it looks like you have bigger disagreements here than with me, so, I'll turn this over to scootso and PD, by the way I disagree with scootso about religion, it will die soon?, enevitable?, I dont think so, and 90% of people in this country agree with me, I'll go with the majority on this one,

Apr 23, 2008 at 07:04 AM : Scottso,...

Scottso, from what that I wrote did you conclude that I am "a believer in the literal truth of the bible"?

I am not, and I know that I've never said, or even hinted otherwise. That, among other things, make it obvious that you are not responding to what I have written, but to some straw-man of your own invention.

Apr 23, 2008 at 08:04 AM : As for your...

As for your happy notion that eugenics advocates are "ancient history", and "out in left field" or that their advocates are unaccredited boobs, that is sadly mistaken.

James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, leader of the Human Genome Project, and Nobel Prize winner is famously a loud, mainstream and accredited advocate of eugenics, for example. A little too loud for some after he recently made remarks that blacks were less intelligent than whites, but that was only the latest of his statements that I would guess you, and oohchild, would find distasteful, including his advocacy for the abortion of potential homosexuals.

Then there is another Nobel Prize winner, Austrailian Macfarlane Burnet, who developed a plan to counter an invasion of Australia "by overpopulated Asiatic countries ... directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions". - in other words, genocide.

Be assured that even though he died in 1985, that "his theories on immunity and "clonal selection" provided the basis for modern biotechnology and genetic engineering".

These stories are not hard to find, if you want to look. In my opinion, they are to be expected from people whose training is, for technological advantages, geared to viewing people as objects and compilations of parts.

Apr 23, 2008 at 08:04 AM : I don't know how...

I don't know how to explain this so you can understand, Starbucks1, but I'll try one more time. You made the claim that Michael Moore lied to a participant in order to gain their appearance in one of his movies, & the possible walk-out by Heston (but you weren't sure about the particulars on that one.) I need you to just show me, with the important part of the link highlighted so I can believe your claim. I certainly shouldn't have to sift through several pages of info in order to back up your claim. Why do you expect me to do your work for you? Did you also have kids in high school do your homework for you?

I have another question for you, too. You wrote: "[religion] will die soon?, enevitable?, I dont think so, and 90% of people in this country agree with me, I'll go with the majority on this one,"

So, if you had been born in India where the majority of the folks are Hindu, do you think you would be Hindu? Do you think that the main reason people are the religion they are is because of geography, or possibly just majority-rule?

(BTW Scott, thanks for your input dude!)

Apr 23, 2008 at 10:04 AM : Progresso, the...

Progresso, the straw-man argument is that you need to pick out one phrase and, because it does not literally and to the letter apply to you personally, make it appear as if that dismisses everything I said. Nice try. ;) Anyone can see I was explaining the fact that Darwin was a "religious" man in that context.

And as for pointing at an extremely few (and very, very much a minority) well established scientists that happen(ed) to hold views supporting eugenics, does not make that any less out in left field and non-mainstream. If it was mainstream there would not have been such an issue about it, would there? Its not very hard to see the response of their peers which denounces those ideas.

So there were some Catholic priests that were guilty of pedophilia. Does that mean Catholics are a majority of pedophiles? Of couse not.

Your "evidence" is lacking.

In any case I'm done with the thread and won't be responding anymore. I just wanted to give some support for Oochild who I think was very brave posting this article here. Its been very amusing reading the non-responses. ;)