Absolutely!
Posted on 04/17/2008 10:54:25 AM PDT by Boxen
“Maybe, but then again, that’s not their thing, Science is.”
Science used to be “their thing,” but they are just as political as the rest of the media.
Case in point: bitching about “extras” in a movie scene. If they stuck to bitching about his misquoting Darwin, that would have been legit “Scientific complaint.
As an aside, social Darwinism is a complete mis-read of Darwin’s theory, no matter what you think of Darwin’s theory.
Social Darwinism assumes people get “better” through natural selection.
Darwin’s theory is that those who have babies are “more fit.” Cutting to the chase, the welfare moms and the polygamous freak fathers in the FLDS compound in El Dorado, Texas are “more fit” from a true biological Darwinian perspective than a brilliant doctor who cures cancer, but has one sickly child.
(Kindly don’t post to me about supporting/disputing Darwin; I don’t care about either side in the dispute. I am merely noting that Social Darwinism is a complete bastardization of biological Darwinism -— WHATEVER you think of his theory, pro- or con-).
Thanks to SciAm for the additional publicity for this film.
Even though I believe in God and also find Evolution to be the most compelling theory for speciation, I think Stein is right that certain elements of our educational (and especially our media) elite are acting in an unscientific manner when dealing with the question of intelligent design.
I think the Darwinists could save some time and cut and paste their rants against Ann Coulter. Same shit, different day.
"The truth is found when men are free to pursue it." FDR
Got that right.
Wouldn’t be funny if it wasn’t true.
Bitching? I think pointing out the Moore-ish tactics of the movie is fair game. I understand that this film is something of a comedy, and not strictly a documentary. Fine, but then so are Michael Moores films, and I took him to task for the same thing. We ought to be consistent, otherwise we'll end up acting like Liberals.
I agree with you about Social Darwinism.
None of these six “points” has any validity in criticizing the movie. The leftist “scientists” are really reaching to trash Stein.
Think of it as a public service to their readership. Some of them might otherwise wander into the movie thinking that it was about science.
Let you know soon as I’ve seen it. BTW, have YOU seen it? If not, you certainly cannot discuss in a logical manner anything the magazine claims. Anyone can claim anything.
Or some might actually be educated as to what goes on at universities.
Supporting Ben Stein is equated to supporting HRC? Why don't you just Godwin the thread and say I support Hitler by supporting Stein.
Thank you, and it wasn't really.
Many of us who believe in God do not do so “to get through our day” as you say. We believe because we are led to believe. I imagine that there are some who say they believe in order to comfort themselves in some manner, and others who say they believe in order to fit in with those they wish to associate with.
The bolded statement is my exact problem with organized religion. I'll let you read into that what you like, but I don't like people telling me what I can and can't believe. Give me the facts and I'll decide what's right and wrong. My experience with people who are religious not because of tradition (their parents and their grandparents etc.) but because something tripped in their lives (drug or alcohol abuse, other personal events) is that they are dogmatic to the point of being illogical and irrational about their belief. Those ARE the people who have chosen religion to "get through their day."
But I venture to say that MOST of those who believe in God do so out of a sense of internal logic, personal experience and/or a true, abiding faith totally independent of any comfort or relief that the belief may provide.
My personal experience with many (definitely not all, but many) religious people is that the belief in God gives them a way to explain away the unknown. I don't want to invoke imaginary all-powerful beings to explain the unknown. I want to know the underlying mechanisms. I want to explore and probe the unknown. A belief in God (as creator anyway) would hinder that goal rather than help me towards it.
My next statements may be construed by some as a fear of religion, but let me set you straight, I'm not afraid of it, I just know (perhaps too much) about it. I have done a non-trivial amount of study of the major religions. I don't consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination. But what i do know is that I don't want to be part of any of them, and I don't want to be forced to be part of any of them (RoP clause). Religion, much like government, is about control over a population. Many people are controlled by fear. That's a normal, healthy response. In this case it is fear of the unknown. I think that one major reason there is a clash between religion and science is not so much that they want to destroy eachother, but that they have competing goals. Science wants to explain the unknown, while religion already has explained it and now wants to consider the matter closed. That's not good enough for most scientists. We became scientists for the sole purpose of furthering knowledge. Not only our own, but also the collective knowledge bank of society.
In short, true faith is not something one merely elects to have (or pretend to have). For those who do not believe and who say so, I respect that and I respect the honesty of it. Because I believe, however, I hope and pray (yes, pray) that non-believers will be open to receiving the gift of faith if that gift should find its way to their doorstep.
You view your faith as a gift, that is your prerogative. I view it as a way of explaining away things that you don't want to bother yourself thinking about. Luckily for us, there are still some that want to know. That being said, if God were to show himself tomorrow and provide proof that he created the universe, I'd be the first one in line to subscribe to his recollection of events. But until that point, I'm going to keep searching.
I suspect they already know.
Who says I have “faith in the secular”?
Ah, but that is the point.
Gobul warming is helping the rise in gas and energy prices, never mind the rise in food costs. ( Have you seen the charts for rice? Yikes) Their policies are harming every day people.
Creationists, however aren’t causing economic harm at all.
The gobul warming crowd is alot more dangerous and unscientific than the God fearing people ever will be. I just don’t know why the evo’s don’t see that.
Did Scientific American do the same for “An Inconvenient Truth?”
Did some wander into that movie thinking that it was about science?
If they did not, they are biased. Period. They are NOT interested in science at all.
O’Doyle Rules!
1. The "selective" quoting of Darwin still illustrates the effect of Darwinian thinking on modern man. Perhaps Darwin tried to dress up his untestable theory of macro-evolution by insisting the elimination of the weak would be "evil". But that doesn't mean his analysis of sympathy as a mere "instinct" is subject to re-interpretation by his subsquent followers.
It is absurd to think that the work of Darwin did anything but encourage those who wanted to eliminate the "weaker races" of humankind.
2. A scene of a crowd in the film was cast? What a shock--filmmakers engage in creating a scene in an auditorium and put a crowd in the building. This is a far, far cry from Hitlery putting planted questions in her town meetings. Pretty weak.
3. Were Dawkins, etc. presenting their views in the film? If so, who cares what the name of the film was going to be? Perhaps the producers of the film can throw some light on how the name/subject of the film changed. But unless the guys being interviewed weren't speaking their minds, I hardly think this matters very much. By the way, how often are liberal interviewers taken to task when they sabotage their subjects--in a much more blatant way than Ben Stein supposedly did.
4. Wow, SA is being pretty lazy here. In 2005, the Wall Street Journal carried a piece about this--and Mr. Sternberg's status at the Smithsonian is clear. What is ALSO clear in the WSJ is that Sternberg was being punished for his views--
The fact that legit scientists are being attacked for daring to question evolution is, as I understand it, the theme of the film. Can anyone deny that?
5. This "revelation" really isn't a revelation--it merely is an apologetic for the scientific establishment.
I'd like to see disprovable, experimental examples of macro-evolution by random chance. Faith in that kind of explanation for the diversity of life is supposed to be tenable than those of us who think ID is reasonable? Ha.
6. The last argument is perhaps the most specious. "Thousands believe in it, so it must be so." Really? What an interesting, scientific take. ;-)
These thoughts are all pretty much off the top of my head, but I did read the article with interest. SA has failed to persuade me the producers of Expelled are being dishonest.
I look forward to seeing the movie, and I look forward to an honest vigourous debate between the best educated people who hold opinions on both sides. :)
A very interesting couple of related works I've seen, just in case anyone is interested:
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.
