Have you heard we invaded Iraq?
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!
And I'll bet those "Darwinists" were the same folks who edited the clips for the movie, right?
Amen, Amen & Amen
No, but the Darwinists looked like the Stalinist thugs that they are. You really should go see the movie rather than talking about something you know absolutely nothing about. Makes you look ignorant.
Pray for W and Our Troops
It's pretty good at telling you whether you should share IV needles with other people, wash your hands before performing surgery, mix ammonia and bleach, attempt to fly by flapping your arms, or light a cigarette while fueling your car.
If your point is that science is a lousy moral code, that's like arguing that the instructions on my microwave popcorn are a lousy guide to changing my car's oil. That's not what it was meant to do or what it claims to do.
This movie was partially about evolution, but the bigger issue was the Gastapo tactics of science/academia and media. Once a theory has group acceptance it is no longer challenged. The wall was the point of the entire movie.
That said, evolution has so many holes in it you could strain noodles yet the Gastapo will not allow those holes to be studied.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
The sound bites chosen by the filmmaker support the filmmaker's premise? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.
You really should go see the movie rather than talking about something you know absolutely nothing about. Makes you look ignorant.
So your position is that I can't know anything about a public policy issue until I go see a movie about it ... and that makes me look ignorant?
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
No, you talking about something you haven’t seen makes you look ignorant and silly. Basically, the same as the people who argued against The Passion w/o ever seeing the movie.
Guess it is no difference than accepting a theory that has no beginning explanation. The point of the movie was about censorship which you haven’t a clue. You were going to be against the movie no matter what the evidence that he provided.
What did you think of the microbioligist professor getting fired?
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Okay, since you know so much more than biologists about evolutionary theory, what part of it precludes the existence of God?
Nor should it be considered as such! Ethics can be used to guide scientific research and discovery, but by itself science is amoral.
One cannot eschew science; one should not eschew morality. Why the emphasis as it shows?
Science IS the foundation of technology. If you use any tool - computer, car, plow, club, foot covering, clothes - you are using technology. Unless one chooses to live naked and simply a gatherer - not even a hunter - you have to use technology (the development end of the R&D spectrum of science).
Eschewing morality should be obvious, but ultimately can be a choice (witness monsters like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, William Gacy, etc). Each eschewed morality - or at least major parts of accepted morality - but still used science.
Thank you from a creationist.
But just for the sake of argument - there can be no naturalistic explanation for the information that is an integral part of life. Information is not a property of matter, and it is not a property of energy. Information can only come from a mind.
Google "Einstein's Gulf"
"I will ask you a question that I have yet to have answered. That question is - what is the evidence for ID?"
Have you heard we invaded Iraq?
With your recent barrage of zealous indignation about this film it would be foolish for anyone to take your word on what Ben Stein said.
Presuming it was Geraldo that asked the question, the left-right question is irrelevant except to say that more on the right possess a critical eye towards Darwinian evolutionary dogma to the exclusion of a role of higher power. Evolutionary zealots can never seem to explain, as Dawkins apparently posits in the film, how the aliens that may have created life here on earth were created themselves.
In the end from what I have gathered the film's ultimate point is the leftist politization of the sciences to the point that any evidence to the contrary to the accepted dogma is to be shunned, ridiculed, banned etc.
When a 20-word statement in the form of a sticker to a text book stating that ID is a belief of many is banned because it is considered teaching ID then it is clear that evolutionary zealots can't stand the heat of competition even in a bumper sticker format.
Define information.
What laws of physics does evolution violate?
What's the name?
If you've seen the movie, you might want to check ExpelledExposed.com to get the other side.
If you're talking about Crocker, she didn't just mention ID, she was teaching it as science. ID is not science, and multiple courts have ruled that it is religion, and thus illegal to teach in a public school labeled as science.
Even still she was not fired, although she could have been. Her semester by semester contract was just not renewed, which is a common thing.
On the other hand, in Texas the director of science education for the state was fired for merely forwarding an e-mail regarding evolution. Her job was SCIENCE EDUCATION, but she was not allowed to mention evolution. See her Youtube story. That kind of blows away the victim status being claimed by creationists.
Try the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
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.