Posted on 05/08/2008 9:12:10 AM PDT by steve-b
Nazis! It’s all about Nazis. In a parallel universe even crazier than our own, Ben Stein is making a documentary about how the Nazis utilized the controversial theory of gravity to make bombs that fall from the sky to the earth, and so the theory of gravity must be wrong. But we are here, and here, Ben Stein is telling us with a straight face that because the Nazis thought it would be a good idea to breed people like people breed animals, the theory of evolution must be wrong....
(Excerpt) Read more at flickfilosopher.com ...
* yawn *
Stupidest. Summation. Ever.
The message of this movie was anti-Science. Here Mr. Stein expounds upon his Science = Genocide formulation showing exactly where the message and audience of this propaganda piece are coming from.
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
:::rolls eyes:::
Maryann, go take your medicine and report back to your rubber room.
Did you see it?
Didn't Stein write about six years ago, postulating ways to ruin American competitiveness and innovation in the course of this century, that these ways would include:
Destroy the knowledge base on which all of mankind's scientific progress has been built by guaranteeing that such learning is confined to only a few, and spread ignorance and complacency among the many. Watch America lose its scientific and competitive edge to other nations that make a comprehensive knowledge base a rule of the society.Looks like Stein has voted for mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism.Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism...to an equal status with technology in the public mind. Make sure that, in order to pay proper (and politically correct) respect to all different ethnic groups in America, you act as if science were on an equal footing with voodoo and history with ethnic fable. (Source)
Best comment there:
“HITLER WAS A CREATIONIST”
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
Well, eugenics (a program of deliberate decisions to shape the gene pool) is clearly a form of Intelligent Design....
It is clearly an attempt at Intelligent Design.
Whether or not it is, in fact, Intelligent is open to debate.
I think the saddest thing about Expelled is how it has shown just how fanatical and evil Darwinism makes people. I mean, when it came out I was expecting that there would be at least some people who believe in evolution who would say, “You know, I believe in evolution, but it’s not right to treat people this way.”
Instead, all I have seen is hate, hate, hate from the Darwinian establishment, half of them denying that they persecute dissent and the other half justifying the persecution the first half denies is happening. One Ph.D. mathematician I know couldn’t go to see Expelled. He had lost his job for questioning Darwinism and it was too painful a subject.
Consistent Darwinists have a worldview of (literally) ‘might makes right’ and that that there is no God to be accountable to, so why not lie and use every dirty trick in the book to get ahead? Simple logic dictates that those who profoundly believe they will be accountable for their words and actions will behave in a more upright manner than those who say the moral code is a meaningless product of a meaningless universe. In all my study of this subject, this simple logic has been born out time and again (though you have to wade through a lot of mud-slinging from Darwinists at times).
Proverbs 18:17.
Sorry, that is a lie.
That's about the 5643rd time that this quote has been trotted out to invalidate anything Mr. Stein has done or may ever do in his life. He was being interviewed. He spoke off the cuff. This quote is something that he said. Given a chance, I bet he'd be glad to clarify his view on this matter.
I hardly think his movie can be passed off as garbage based on one thing he said conversationally.
drivel, absolute ignoramous drivel.
The logic to make such a claim is so ridiculous you might just was well say that Darwin, Dawkins and everyone else in the evolutionary camp are also creationists.
Hitler made some worthless PR statements that he spent the rest of his life ignoring and contradicting. When an atheists cites these PR moments to the exclusion of his actions and his own worldview as expressed in works like Mein Kampf, they are not being honest with themselves.
Hitler was not being obedient to any creationary scripture (Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Mormon, whatever), and was in fact engaged in actions quite contrary to every creationary religion we could think of. Rather than acknowledging a divine moral code he based his life on the Darwinian moral code of survival of the fittest, and applied those ideas more consistently than almost anyone else in history.
Modern evolutionists are terribly inconsistent. They talk about successful reproduction proving fitness as the core of natural selection theory, but abort and don't have kids. They deny a God who is the source of the standard of good and evil, but are tirelessly proclaiming their self-righteousness and how evil/sinful their opposition is. They believe populations divide over time with less fit populations being destroyed in competition with more fit populations, but decry the racism that is inherent to the evolutionary viewpoint, and on and on.
They claim to believe in evolution, but are forced to fall back on a creationary foundation just to live an even semi-coherent thought life. Good and evil, justice and injustice, purpose in life, these are all things that can only be found in the creationary worldview. (God + evolution just gets you a demonic Baal type figure, if you are consistent about your theodicy.)
OK, then. From now on, I assume that you'll be defending Hillary, Obama, et al from FReepers who quote "off the cuff" comments where they reveal their pro-socalist mindset?
In C.S. Lewis’ 2nd book of the Space Trilogy, Lewis portrayed the villians, as they descended deeper into villiany, not as being more and more sophisticated in their evil, but descending into muttering, driveling, ranting. I’ve often observed, how the reaction of evolutionists when their core religious beliefs are undermined is remarkably similar. (For evidence, see above.)
Atheists are always on the attack, because they have no defenses.
Judge Stein's movie on the movie. Judging him by a statement in an interview shows that you have a weak position on the movie.
I had to point out that to begin with, this was at very least a poor example of trying to argue his point...that he was attacking a man based on his outward appearance, and if I had said "Obama's just a thick-lipped N-word", I would be called an intolerant ignorant bigot. You debate the issues by staying on the issues, and attacking someone based on their looks is a sign you've got nothing to attack with.
Secondly, every Lib I know proclaims how tolerant I should be of every kind of "diversity" under the sun, and to make fun of a man based on his weight was certainly a sign of intolerance and bigotry of the worst kind.
I encountered this same kind of Lib bigotry some time ago when Ken Hamm opened his "Creationism Museum" here in Ohio. Now, personally, I am a "God-Made-Man-Over-A-Million-Years" kind of guy. (My wife is a dyed in the wool "7-Day-Miracle" person, and we get along fine.) I figure my view doesn't threaten my Salvation, and if it matters, God will explain how he really did it five minutes after I am dead, if in fact it matters at all then. Still, I don't agree with the very thing Ben is attacking: Teaching one unprovable (Godless) theory as if it were a provable Law with no possible allowance for outside views. There is no litmus-paper-test for something that supposedly goes on for millions of years unobserved, and I object that any student with a different opinion can be squashed with grading.
Bottomline, this Creation Museum opened up, and he's doing so much business he has to expand the parking lot. Fine with me if he promotes what he believes even though I see things (slightly) different. But the local "alternative newspaper" comes out, and boy, did THEY decide to straighten us out! These "tolerant" Liberals, who would preach to me up and down on how I should accept homosexuals in the Boy Scouts or schools, on how it was provincial for me to say abortion was wrong for others; these free thinkers simply gutted the people who were flocking to the Creation Museum. "They shouldn't be allowed to teach this nonsense!" one exclaimed. Some woman (in flannel, no doubt) insisted "this is just short of child abuse!"
Proving once again that those who preach Tolerance are often the most intolerant.
The funny thing is that here in My Home Town, we have a thing called the "Underground Railroad Freedom Center." This white elephant was sold to the taxpayers as a way to "revitalize our downtown". It was going to be bringing in tons of people to the downtown. It was going to "bring us together." We were told that it would be paying for itself after three years.
Five years along, the Slavery Museum is doing a lot of business with school kids who are bussed in for their reeducation, for free of course. Their "walk in" business is almost nonexistent, and they have laid off half their staff...but recently they wanted not only another tax levy to stay open, but a million more because they want to move the original entrance they built facing the river (where our revitalized downtown development has never grown) turned around to the other side of the building facing the city. (Yep, the reason nobody wants to go rehash slavery and feel guilty about it is simply that they are facing the wrong way.)
Also, this past year the City Council FINALLY got the ball rolling on the new riverfront development. The Slavery Museum owned a big chunk of land that was given to them for free for "later growth". In the new riverfront plan, that empty scrub land was needed for two trendy restaurants, so guess what...the Museum told the city that they wanted a million plus dollars for that land, the mud they got for free. After a few days of talk radio, though, they caved, when they decided that the move made them look like, well, greedy and ungrateful bastards.
But anyway, compare this. On one hand, the Liberals invented a downer museum that makes white people feel guilty (even though a lot of us died for that freedom in the Civil War), a museum that few people want to go to, that must extort cash from taxpayers to stay open. On the other hand, you have privately funded interactive museum that whatever you say is profitable. And guess who the "tolerant" people think should be shut down?
Hold your arms out Richard, it makes it harder for them to throw the net over you.
Thanks for posting. Nice summary of the situation. Liberals don’t like to have their assumptions questioned. The secular humanists on this board follow the same pattern. Personally, I don’t mind if Evolution is taught — but when non-believers are shouted down and punished for their apostasy, then I do have a problem.
The problem scientists have is with a fundamentalist version of religion being forced into science classes under the guise of science.
What do you expect scientists to do when folks come claiming to be doing science, while at the same time violating all of the rules of science?
Since then, science has been re-defined -- specifically to exclude anything immaterial. Now, contra Newton, you are free to expell anyone who comes along "claiming to be doing science, while at the same time violating all of the rules of science" as you have freshly defined them.
How conveneient for you.
I love it!
The perverts and their supporters keep reviwing a different movie than the one I saw. The Nazi reference was incidental, factual and less than 5% of the entire film.
The main subject, for normal viewers, is the "McCarthyist" behavior of academia against anyone who dares to ask questions they can't answer.
In a nutshell, that is the subject of the movie!
OK. This movie is about how the scientific establishment has ‘mccarthy’d’ those who do not follow the party (evolution) line. This is something its supporters say routinely, that it really isn’t about knocking down the ToE, or trying to bolster support for ID, it’s about how the scientific establishment treats its renegades.
Do I have that right?
If that is correct, can anyone explain the foray into Nazis and Eugenics and the attempt at linking the two with Darwin? How does that help making the point of the movie?
Easy.
Smear Darwin using guilt by association, no matter how tenuous, and you combat the theory of evolution.
They are forced to use these tactics because they have neither the scientific training, nor the evidence, to combat the theory of evolution in scientific venues.
(It's the Goebbels approach.)
I can't find a God constant or variable in Newton's laws of motion. “He said, ‘Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.’” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton)
Newton distinguishes between what he is able to describe with science and what is beyond his knowledge yet.
“Since then, science has been re-defined — specifically to exclude anything immaterial.”
For the Greeks science and philosophy was one. With Newton modern science starts.
Newton wrote in a supplement to his “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica” - “Hypotheses non fingo” - “I feign no hypotheses”. That excludes anything immaterial or to be more specific anything not material or not energetic.
By the way, what did Dawkins exactly said in the movie about Panspermia? For me Panspermia can be a kind of ID.
Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism...to an equal status with technology in the public mind. Make sure that, in order to pay proper (and politically correct) respect to all different ethnic groups in America, you act as if science were on an equal footing with voodoo and history with ethnic fable. (Source)
Looks like Stein has voted for mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism.
////////////////////
philosophy in the English speaking worlds was screwed up by Francis Bacon in the late 1500 when he drew up his tree of knowledge and put theology as a subgroup of philosophy right next to witchcraft.
science is a subgroup of philosophy but theology is something very different. philosphy ends in personality and character of man or a man. Theology ends in the personality and character of God. Man is the measure of things—is a philosophical proposition. God is the measure of all things is a theological proposition. Philosophy is bottoms up. Theology is top down. The origins and ends of philosophy and theology both disappear into mystery.
By the way, what did Dawkins exactly said in the movie about Panspermia? For me Panspermia can be a kind of ID.
///////////
in No Intelligence Allowed Dawkins said he thought the genes came from space aliens. Likely he was echoing the sentiments of Francis Crick who discovered the double helix.
I saw Dawkins on Discovery last week opining that language was the new genetics. I about fell out of my chair when I heard that. Did that mean that language came from space aliens too?
Maybe
60 million years from now geologists studying the earth will see a layer where suddenly an advanced civilization appears—there won’t be any transitional forms—because 5000 years is just a sliver of sand in deep time. It will look like some space aliens set up shop. However, if they have a copy of the bible they’ll learn the truth. God himself came to visit the earth in the presence of Son.
See my post above on how Francis Bacon (& Decartes)screwed up the tree of knowledge for the english speaking world in the late 1500’s/early 1600’s.
Panspermia is a giant change the subject gambit.
It just moves the argument about the origin of life and intelligence to another planet. I fail to see how that’s an improvement.
While I’m generally in-line with the “God used evolution” folks, in these various discussions I’ve noticed something that is interesting, at least to me.
The violently anti-God and Stein bunch are appalled that misdeeds of people with a less than thorough understanding of evolutionary theory are used to discredit their hero Darwin. And have in fact been doing so for decades if not centuries.
Yet as a group Dawkins and others are perfectly happy to use the misdeeds in the past of people with a less than thorough understanding of Christianity to discredit that religion.
This is despite the obvious fact that Darwinism, like all science, is amoral. It may be able to tell us how things happen, but can provide exactly zero insight on whether what an action we are considering is right and wrong. The Nazis may have misunderstood Darwin, but they certainly weren’t violating his teachings. Any moral basis for action or inaction that a scientist might have is imported from somewhere else. It cannot be derived from the pursuit of knowledge.
The Inquisition and other Christian misdeeds, in contrast, are directly in contradiction with the words of Christ himself.
So why does criminal misbehavior in the name of Christ reflect badly on Christianity, while criminal misbehavior in the name of Darwin not reflect anything at all on Darwin?
why does criminal misbehavior in the name of Christ reflect badly on Christianity, while criminal misbehavior in the name of Darwin not reflect anything at all on Darwin?
Darwin didn't have as good a press agent?
Post 30 should read:
The violently anti-God and Stein bunch are appalled that misdeeds of people with a less than thorough understanding of evolutionary theory are being used to discredit their hero Darwin.
Yet as a group Dawkins and others are perfectly happy to use the misdeeds in the past of people with a less than thorough understanding of Christianity to discredit that religion. And have in fact been doing so for decades if not centuries.
That's not what the movie is about.
How about allowing questions that the perverts can't answer? Is that Ok with you?
He said, in his own words, that it was possible, not knowing what the actual origin of life was.
That's not what the movie is about.
How about allowing questions that the perverts can't answer? Is that Ok with you?
Not sure I understand your comment.
Who are "the perverts"?
From a related thread...In 1987, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the separation of church and state in Edwards vs. Aquilard.
If anybody wants to see the USSC's bogus separation of church and state disappear before their eyes, a politically correct perversion of our constitutional religious freedoms that was wrongly legislated from the bench when the Court decided Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940, then please read the following post. Note that while the post concerns a 10 Commandments issue it is also applicable to this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1992174/posts?page=22#22The bottom line, as mentioned in the referenced post, is that the people need to reconnect with the Founder's division of federal and state powers, particularly where the wrongly ignored 10th A. power of the states to address religious issues is concerned, power now limited by the honest interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The people then need to get in the faces of renegade justices and do a major spring cleaning where USSC respect for our religious freedoms is concerned. President Lincoln put it this way.
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln (Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas), 1858.
Next question?
QUESTION OF THE WEEK!
Excellent point. It is sophistry to blame either Christianity or Darwin for Hitler's crimes. If people assign blame to one, then it seems to me they are stuck with blaming both.
Do you agree?
Hitler was to blame for Hitler’s crimes. Personally responsible.
Now, a gotcha:
WAS HITLER FITTER than those he trampled in the Holocaust? I contend that honest Existentialist Darwinists must maintain that reprehensible position. Atheist Aryans, you know.
Conversely, the Bible says we all are desperately wicked, without hope or good in us except through salvation by faith. Sinners, saved by Grace. Suffices for me.
Hitler PERVERTED Christianity, he carried the Darwin family's eugenics theories to their most logical conclusion.
You contend wrong.
So, do you contend that Hitler was less fit than those he exterminated?
Do you contend that he had some sort of right to ‘play God’ in the matter of life and death?
Do you contend that he did good by ‘culling’ the Human race? (shudder)
Do you contend that what he did was not (shudder) reprehensible?
Do you contend that he had some sort of right to ‘play God’ in the matter of life and death?
Do you contend that he did good by ‘culling’ the Human race? (shudder)
Do you contend that what he did was not (shudder) reprehensible?
No, you missed it.
I stated that you contend wrong.
This second post has not caused me to alter my opinion.
I understand your assertion that I contend wrongly.
Now, answer my questions, please.
WAS HITLER FITTER than those he trampled in the Holocaust? I contend that honest Existentialist Darwinists must maintain that reprehensible position. Atheist Aryans, you know.
Hitler lost the war and ended up permanently removed from the gene pool. How does that square with your "gotcha"?
Does that mean you think that blaming either the TOE or Christianity for Nazi atrocities is sophistry?
WAS HITLER FITTER than those he trampled in the Holocaust?
If by "fitter" you mean "more likely to survive", then I suppose he was "fitter" than his victims in Nazi Germany prior to 1945. If I walk unarmed in a high crime area, the local gang is "fitter" than me. Conversely, if a thug breaks into my home, chances are very good that I would be "fitter".
Now, if by "fitter" you mean he had more of a "moral right to survive", then my answer is "no".
Atheist Aryans, you know.
I think you are on shaky ground with that. Hitler publicly professed himself a Christian and declared that the Third Reich regarded Christianity as the foundation of the nation's morality. He also justified his racial policies as doing the will of the Eternal Creator.
Conversely, the Bible says we all are desperately wicked, without hope or good in us except through salvation by faith. Sinners, saved by Grace. Suffices for me.
Are Hitler's Jewish victims who kept their faith to the end doomed to Hell forever, as you understand NT Scripture?
Since you’ve taken the low road of both name-calling and personal attacks—forbidden here—I herewith ping a Moderator. I have the courage to do so publicly.
Now answer the questions, please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.