Posted on 04/17/2008 4:07:06 PM PDT by Aristotelian
I confess that when the producers of Ben Stein’s new documentary “Expelled” called, offering me a private screening, I was less than excited.
It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay “rights.” Abortion “rights.” On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism’s power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension.
Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles. An entire documentary to state the obvious? You can see my reluctance to view it.
I went into the screening bored. I came out of it stunned.
Ben Stein’s extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.
Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics – experts all -- who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves “expelled” from intellectual discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State University).
That’s disturbing enough, but what Stein does next is truly shocking. He allows the principal advocates of Darwinism to speak their minds.
(Excerpt) Read more at mrc.org ...
Post 78 to you was in error, my bad. It was for other person. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
I keep up just fine, dogmatic claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
Ya, all of us smart folks know that the complexities of the universe and the life around us is all just an accident, without purpose.
We look into the eyes of our infant offspring and are amazed at the results of colliding atoms.
Wrong.
Humans changing allele frequency in dogs by design? Pretty intelligent.
If you are indeed a Biologist perhaps you can explain to me how ERV’s are not evidence of common descent?
Perhaps you can tell me how you think nylon eating bacteria came about?
Oh, I see, you’re trying to say that anyone who pursues the investigation wherever it leads and ends up at the Creator conclusion MUST have had a close minded theological approach to the research.
See the “PC liberal” section in the article. There’s the PC liberal “enlightened” side, and no other side need be considered.
All of you are so predictable. Arrogant asses that assume that anyone that doesn't share your opinion MUST be ignorant of the field of study.
Again, read the "PC liberal" section of the article again and see if you see yourself.
The short legs of a dachshund were not designed by a human, the trait was selected, the ‘design’ was a mutation in a gene for bone length.
The design was God's and he was not the “Incompetent Designer” of Behe’s imagining that is a rank incompetent incapable of making a system that is necessary and sufficient to effect biological change or innovation.
I suppose I shouldn’t say it’s wrong, seeing as how there seem to be a dozen or more different definitions for the word.
Most of those definitions include the phrase, the study of the origins of life in the universe. That pretty much covers the original question, if you trace this mini-thread back far enough on this thread.
It frankly is a shame that evolution/creation/ID can’t be discussed at this forum without it always degenerating into name-calling and a whole bunch of smoke.
Jim fixed that by getting rid of most of the scientists, although a few remain for now.
ID isn’t science. It certainly isn’t a “theory” in the scientific sense. It’s a philosophical argument that wants to pretend to non-scientists that it’s a scientific explanation.
It doesn’t work that way, but for those who are predisposed to believe the outcome and hope for support later, it’s quite appealing.
I’m not even sure it’s an argument worth having, because the ID side doesn’t want to talk about evidence, except to attempt to poke holes in the evolutionary side of things. It offers no coherent, testable evidence on its side at all, except that “this is so special, it must have been designed.” You can’t even begin to argue with that logic, must less test it.
This movie will play to the crowd who thinks it somehow refutes science. It even blames Darwin for the Holocaust. You gotta throw Hitler into any insult in order to really prove a point, I guess.
It’s utter tripe. I’m sure it will get rave reviews here because it reinforces beliefs. It will not change any.
Oh, I see, you’re trying to say that anyone who pursues the investigation wherever it leads and ends up at the Creator conclusion MUST have had a close minded theological approach to the research.All this blithering about logical necessity isn't scientific. Perhaps you should learn more about the scientific method?See the “PC liberal” section in the article. There’s the PC liberal “enlightened” side, and no other side need be considered.
It is as stupid a question as “If gravity were true how come the moon doesn't fall into the Earth?”. Try that one on a Physicist or Astronomer and see how much respect you get.
It’s understood that God had nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth. What, then, is the alternate explanation? Stein asks these experts, and their very serious answers are priceless. One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens. Anything but God.
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if this is an accurate account of what is in the movie, but that's what I thought we were talking about, not something FR people were making up.
I remain, for now.
The Dude abides.
allmendream.
As near as I can tell, you've supposed to surrender in the face of condescension. I'm not sure why, but apparently it's expected.
Where have I ever said I supported this movie? I haven’t said I’m going to see it, I haven’t said other people should go see it, I haven’t said it is correct, I haven’t said nice things about Ben Stein — not just on this thread, but in ANY thread here on FR, or anywhere else on the web.
I’ve discussed issues which were raised by people in relation to this movie, because there were interesting to me and being discussed.
If I go see the movie, I would then be happy to comment on what I think about the movie itself.
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if this is an accurate account of what is in the movie, but that's what I thought we were talking about, not something FR people were making up.Do a quick google and you'll see why the earlier wacko was so dishonest. Nobody in Expelled(as far I've found after the article and googling synopsis of the movie) says anything about proteins. They talk about organic compounds and amino acids, which is much simpler and much more easy to prove.
The protein claims were made in this thread.
I apologize.
No, I thought the “a” in “abiogenesis” stood for “a”, not “all”.
:-)
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.