Posted on 05/08/2008 9:12:10 AM PDT by steve-b
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?
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.