Posted on 04/20/2008 6:09:13 PM PDT by Soliton
Ben Stein was just on Fox News with Geraldo. He was asked If ID versus Evolution was a "left, right thing". He responded,"No, It's an atheist versus a non-believer thing". Stein inadvertantly admitted that ID is a religious argument, not science!
If you would have seen the movie you would have known that he addressed the court case. Amazing that you have to pull that red herring. Go see the movie before you make a bigger fool of yourself than you already are.
So now your arguing that ID doesn’t exist because the Courts say so. That is not the point of the movie, but nice kneejerk reaction.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
I believe you just contradicted yourself right there.
Then they should have no trouble getting it overturned on appeal. They are appealing, aren't they?
Remember when the gestapo voters voted the creationists off the Dover school board?
The creationist movement and the movie Expelled are constructed on faulty premises.
No they would not. And why should they? If you wander through the woods will you find whole skeletons of deer or other animals? And the evidence you do find, would it be covered by ground, protected, ready to be dug up in a million years time? No, you would not. Does that mean there are no deer or other animals?
As for transitional fossils, science has identified hundreds which they believe shows the evolutionary process. Knock yourself out. Link
In their proper places. One wouldn't present chemestry in a theology class, don't present creationism in a science class.
So what was his purpose in connection Darwin with Hitler? Did he also go into the connection between Hitler and Christianity or any of the numerous quotes where Hitler claims to be doing God's work? Just curious.
Whatever else you could accuse Hitler and Stalin of, you cannot accuse them of any sort of a breakdown in basic logic; they were simply following the teachings of Darwin to their logical conclusions.
If God created all life, then macro-evolution is no explanation. I have no problem with micro-evolution.
Five star movie. Saw it Friday and can’t recommend it highly enough. Stein gives the leading Darwinists enough rope to hang themselves. Instead, they apparently decided to blow themselves up, and the bridge behind them.
Hitler believed he was following the teachings of Jesus to their logical conclusions, too.
About 50 years ago, my commie sympathizing grandfather, bless him, told me how the commie's preferred Lysenko over Darwin because believing in Lysenko meant believing that man was perfectible.
I'm really embarassed that Ben Stein, one of my heroes, has made this movie. There are uncountable examples out there of academic censorship and bullying. So, what does Ben do? Instead of exploring the topic in a general way that would garner widespread sympathy and agreement, he narrowly focuses on evolution, a subject he is not qualified to have an opinion on.
The result of Ben's bad judgment is to create arguments, such as the one here, on evolution, instead of on academic freedom. So the important point of academic freedom, that might just save future generations from all kinds of indoctrination, is lost and buried.
Furthermore, this movie sets the cause of liberty and the conservative movement back 50 years because it pits science against faith unnecessarily. For evidence of that I submit the discussion here.
So what we have now done is allow the leftists, socialists or whatever you want to call them, to claim that reason and science are their domain while freedom and liberty are based on superstition and faith. Way to go.
I can see it all now, in the face of Al Gore's "scientific" charts and graphs showing how Marxism is the cure for what ails us, we will choose, instead, to holler "Down with Darwin" and sing "Give me that old time religion." Very persuasive.
Had someone tell me this weekend that ID shouldn’t be taught because it’s worthless, and evolution was proven.
When I mentioned the lack of evidence for macro-evolution, she didn’t know what “macro-evolution” was.
I think most people, when presented explicitly with the argument that the Theory of Evolution has to be discredited or destroyed by any means necessary in order to prevent another Hitler would seriously quetion that proposition. But set them up with some carefully chosen "facts" and push the right emotional buttons and they take up that banner without ever realizing they've done it.
That is an interesting point; and why I so much enjoy FreeRepublic.
Thanks for being here.
For substantiation of my claim I would urge you to go to the discovery institutes website and follow the link to the law review article that they wrote on the Dover decision. It goes step by step through the mistakes that the judge made in his ruling.
Some here use “Science” as a substitute for God. It is their excuse for not following any moral code other than the one they devise for themselves. That ends up with an evil society. You know, like Roe v. Wade.
That was the point.
And no, I did not advocate that people look on the microwave popcorn for instructions on how to change the oil.
Read the book of Genesis (Hebrew scriptures). You get to decide if you believe their record or not. You also get to choose whether you accept the genealogies of not. If your Jewish and Christian friends are believers in the traditional sense, they will accept the biblical record. Otherwise they are just wearing the external label of a Jew or a Christian. If they don’t accept the testimony of Genesis, on what basis do they accept the testimony of the Torah, the Prophets, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Revelation. What do they believe in?
Thanks for your very kind reply. Its been good discussing this issue with you. I do want to clarify one thing. I probably conceeded slightly more than I should have in the statement that you paraphrased. I characterized ID as primarily a scientiffically based argument against evolution. However, in their law review article the ID proponents argue persuasively that they are presenting evidence in favor of design and not just against evolution. In other words, they are not going to speculate about who the designer is, or how he designed. But they would argue that they can come up with an effective scientiffic test to demonstrate the existance of design. So, that their argument goes beyond the dualistic argument that evolution can’t work therefore ID must work. As a Creationist I tend to think largely based on this dualistic argument and I just slightly messed up on my understanding of the ID argument.
Thanks! I look forward to seeing there proposed experiment.
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.