Expelled, Important and A Highly Enjoyable Movie To Boot

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 4/18/08 | Purple Mountains

[PurpleMountains]

I just returned home from seeing the premiere of Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed". I was amazed that such an important movie that addresses serious questions would be so enjoyable and have such great entertainment value. The movie exposes Darwinism and the crushing of scientific inquiry going on in this country. Darwinism is the foundation science of modern liberalism, and just as liberalism is a failed philosophy and imposes political correctness to stifle debate, so is some of Darwinian theory wrong, and scientific study and debate about it is simiarly stifled. I urge everyone to see this movie and spread its messsage.

[Oztrich Boy]

If he was going to have a change of heart on the death bed he would have called for his friend not the widow of an evangelist preacher who was a stranger from many miles away. She has no credibility and no corroboration.

Actually she was the evangelist not her husband, She married twice: to a 69 year old retired Admiral, and a 74 year old pork magnate, by this gaining a title and money.

Incidentally the suppose visit to Darwin was only 3 months after her first husband's death. She evidently didn't follow the mourning practice common to a person of her station in society of the time.

[tokenatheist]

I would believe it if it was true. But you do not seem willing to support your own statements which puts them into the category of rumors.

[tokenatheist]

If absolute truth establishes religion why do so many different religions exist?

[tokenatheist]

In science Theories have greater standing than Laws.

[tokenatheist]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2003725/posts?page=89#89

[skeptoid]

invented bombast

[Finny]

What are you talking about, Old Testament, New Testament? You think it matters? It's the word that matters. The word is the key to our survival as a species on this earthly plane. It's not that complicated. In fact, it's pretty simple. You overthink things and become unhappy and cynical because you think you don't believe in God, I guess. That's your path and it's alright by me, but it's a long way around. Slavery in the West didn't just end by itself, you know. It ended because of the militarily-backed moral force of Judeo-Christian nations who know slavery is wrong where most of the rest of the world had from time immemorial and still do think slavery is part of being human. And as far as I know, there is no text in either old or new testament (though I am no biblical scholar by any stretch) that explicitly instructs us to reject slavery. But 50 generations of Judeo-Christian upbringing brought about its end. You are a product of that, I am, my declared-atheist dad is -- it is what it is. You can flatter yourself that the inner goodness of man would have done the same without Judeo-Christian rules if you want. I hold no such illusion.

Marrying girls at the age of nine, subjecting women to subhuman status, having slaves, lust involving adults and children, human sacrifice, disrespect for human life, cruelty, and ENVY (probably our biggest and worst immediate enemy) -- you really think these things disappeared from the "norm" by themselves?

I know they didn't.

[ml/nj]

When you look at the earth it appears flat. It isn’t.

That's the best you can do?

I asked you about Stonehenge. What would you say about someone who had a theory it was the result of the placement of random stones by a glacier? There are random erratic boulders all over the place, and with enough glaciers and enough random stones certainly the probability is that we should discover some order among some of them.

(The reason you won't answer is because you realize how absurd my suggestion is, right?)

ML/NJ

[tokenatheist]

‘It’s not that complicated. In fact, it’s pretty simple.’

If it isn’t complicated, if it is truly simple why are their so many different interpretations of it - all insisting they are correct.

The major denominations can’t even agree on which books belong in the Bible in the first place. Then you have the issues with all the translations and the various interpretations of those translations.

That is the opposite of ‘truly simple’

But, just so you know, I am not unhappy nor am I cynical.

[Finny]

Why do you expect perfection out of Judeo Christianity? It's the WORD that's important here, and simply, the Left, Liberalism, rejects THE WORD. The anecdote is to acknowledge and reinforce the declared Judeo-Christian rules that provided the foundation for our nation.

The major denominations can’t even agree on which books belong in the Bible in the first place ....

You are wrong to make the bickering of religious figureheads your rationale for rejecting Judeo-Christianity's role as the best proven plan ever for man's good.

You are right to criticize religious figureheads bent on discrediting paleontological science in the name of God.

[reasonisfaith]

That’s a good question, and the answer must be understood with a firm grasp of logic:

Absolute truth includes good and evil.

[reasonisfaith]

Every time you open your mouth you are contributing to the advancement of the ID argument. That is, when you make use of rational discourse. Reason is grounded in the mechanics of cause and effect, the existence of which implies first cause.

Furthermore, your discussion of causal relationships within a biological context has similar impact: local causation necessarily implies global (universal) causation.

[Tench_Coxe]

I saw the movie as well. And, having read through this thread, the cranks have been true to form--not discussing the actual message of the movie (in fact, anything but), but entering the same mental m---urbation cycle seen time after time.
Stein points out what has been enthusiastically been supported by some even on this forum: the destruction of careers due to orthodoxy driven by a worldview. As pointed out in the movie, at the heart of the matter is a worldview trying to fit science to itself. And, that the actions/debate has very little to do with science, but metaphysics (from both sides).

And the look on Stein's face when Dawkins posits that some intelligent agent (other than a god or God) 'designed' life on earth is priceless. I could tell Dawkins got flustered. I also love the backhanded compliment about Dawkins being intelligent, but 'a bit of a reptile'.

[philetus]

Take a look at post 55 and then take your meds”

Post 55, what he posted:It is of no help in determining what, who, or whence that entity is.

What you posted:I hope so. I did a cut and paste from your post

Your “cut and paste”:

but we aren’t allowed to ask “what, who, or whence that entity is”?

Seems to me, that makes you a liar

[thulldud]

Nothing that I said expressed or implied the notion that asking isn't "allowed". It's just not a scientific question.

Seems to me, that makes you a liar.

I'll differ with you there.

[philetus]

Nothing that I said expressed or implied the notion that asking isn’t “allowed”. It’s just not a scientific question.”

That’s not what I sais and you know it.
Are you a plant?

[thulldud]

You're as incomprehensible as you are uncomprehending.

Are you a plant?

Would you do me the favor of explaining that?

[philetus]

Would you do me the favor of explaining that?"

Main Entry: 1that Listen to the pronunciation of 1that Pronunciation: \ˈthat, thət\ Function: pronoun Inflected Form(s): plural those Listen to the pronunciation of those \ˈthōz\ Etymology: Middle English, from Old English thæt, neuter demonstrative pron. & definite article; akin to Old High German daz, neuter demonstrative pron. & definite article, Greek to, Latin istud, neuter demonstrative pron. Date: before 12th century 1 a: the person, thing, or idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the situation b: the time, action, or event specified c: the kind or thing specified as follows d: one or a group of the indicated kind 2 a: the one farther away or less immediately under observation or discussion b: the former one3 a—used as a function word after and to indicate emphatic repetition of the idea expressed by a previous word or phrase b—used as a function word immediately before or after a word group consisting of a verbal auxiliary or a form of the verb be preceded by there or a personal pronoun subject to indicate emphatic repetition of the idea expressed by a previous verb or predicate noun or predicate adjective 4 a: the one : the thing : the kind : something, anything bplural : some persons — all that : everything of the kind indicated — at that 1: in spite of what has been said or implied2: in addition : 2besides

[thulldud]

OK, guess that was all I needed to know.

<plonk!>

[damondonion]

And how are “evolutionary algorithms” related to the theory of evolution or the truth or falsehood thereof? How is belief in evolution (the theory, not the algorithm) necessary for designing, manufacturing, or using any kind of military equipment. You might want to start with rifles, since a rifle is still the most basic instrument of war; how is belief in evolution necessary for marksmanship??