Posted on 04/28/2008 12:01:40 PM PDT by Delacon
Good one.
Of course, I just wrote a post about an article I didn't read past the first two paragraphs. I'm just following Mr. Derbyshire's literary model.
I haven't seen it either.
Of course, I also didn't write a big article bragging about how ignorant I was concerning a documentary right before trashing it.
Notary Sojac, thanks for continuing the philosophical discussion.
Remember the lines “We hold these truths to be self-evident...” Natural rights are based on a premise that each individual is autonomous. There’s no proof for that and the cruelty of state run dictatorships seems to be the norm in world history.
Also, it’s possible to be an agnostic and also a righteous person. So long as you believe in the principles of liberty unabridged. Not liberty as granted by the federal government.
This whole scenario highlights (ID/creationists with their belief that children are a gift from God and the evolutionists with their belief that children are a cog in the wheel of the state and if you want to stick a fork in their head go ahead because I could give a rip) the need to abolish the department of education and also the concept of public schools in the U.S. Too too many of our students are being taught that the 2nd amendment grants the government the right to establish the national guard and that the 1st amendment abolishes the practice of religion in public.
The number one reason to abolish public schools is to do away with the concept that our children belong to the state - after all, that’s the underlying message in all the lesson plans.
Yours truly,
The Woim
“btw...I’ve yet to see a conservative refer to themselves as a “con”...just FWI. ;)”
I ref myself that way all the time and you are the first to question it. Makes sence to me. This is a conservative forum. In forums, people tend to use shorthand to save time. I right “con” for that reason. I can’t believe I am the only freeper to do that. Freeper btw is short for someone who posts on FR(Free Republic). ;)
DING DING DING...in the making my point for me dept...you just won first place!
So why IS it that the Godless liberal elite are so afraid when a student DARES utter ID or creation to the point the auto-answer is always a scream: BUT BUT BUT...THAT’S NOT SCIENCE!!!!!!!! (Nevermind, as I said, no one can define science in the first place, as it’s all too often concensus!)
BAN this and BAN that!
Banning prayer from gov. schools was EXACTLY what you just described! Liberals chose govt. AS their God, while conervatives know better and reject such a thing, simple as that!
Twisting it around and projecting otherwise doesn’t make it any less so!
(Nevermind, as I said science itself is all too often mere concensus in the first place!)
HELL, how the hell can anyone tell if it’s science or not, when the Stalinesque liberal academics squash all opposing views!
Look at it this way...just WHO is it hijacking the government and or the legal system in this bizarro-effort to squash ALL public displays of Christianity via the myth of separation of church and state?
GOD gave us our inalienable rights. The founding fathers said as much.
Basically the only time I see Christan groups involved in the legal system NOW is to stem off attacks from the godless liberals & ACLU types or try to reclaim the lost ground from liberal attacks.
Christmas, a federal holiday was sooooooo awfully offensive on the school calendar here that liberals snuck it off, by threatening the board with legal action, and they folded like a tent. Not a parent knew about it until school started.
Christmas, you know that FEDERAL HOLIDAY on Dec. 25th!
That kind of thing is BLATANTLY unAmerican, and wouldn’t have happened had liberals NOT ,been allowed to run rampant with their hatred of God Separation Church and State insanity in the first place!
Now don’t try and go spin this as some “con” thing, that IDers or Christians are the ones banning evolution or hi-jacking kids like Newdow!
An TV news programs aren't? I don't think the fair use doctrine distinguishes between profit and non-profits; and it is a documentary film. Can you show the law that says a for-profit cannot assert a fair-use defense?
Besides, you said it wouldn't make a profit.
No offense intended, of course, just words of wisdom which should be taken as such... (As most words of wisdom, I expect mine to be completely disregarded!)
Yours truly,
The Woim
Has anyone touched on the idea that trying to PROVE God seems to show an obvious lack of FAITH?
I haven’t seen the movie, but Hitler DID utilize Darwin to his own ends, and thanked eugenics professors in the U.S.
How do they do that?
Oh I get it.
Submit their findings to liberal elitists and wait for a phone call!
LMAO!
Look up copyright law. Movies are expressly named as requiring a license. Why did they get licenses for the other music in the “documentary”. And no, it won’t make a profit.
Give me a break. There is science, the ongoing pursuit of facts and truth in the physical world. There is bad science, which is stuff that has been disproven and then there is non science that are taught because of their intrinsic value of which ID may have a place.
“I haven’t seen the movie, but Hitler DID utilize Darwin to his own ends, and thanked eugenics professors in the U.S.”
Yeah, and I haven’t read Mein Kamp but know enough about it to know it is a very awful book.
HOWEVER, if you think about, a VOLUME of films could be made on how liberal elitist professors are ruining the country from attacking our troops from Bezerkly, to gun loathing idiots to Harvard, to infanticide on demand in between.
Are you saying they get a free pass collectively or that Ben Stein shouldn’t even bother because he didn’t encompass all that’s wrong with liberal academia in one short 90 minute piece?
I’ll ask a question about DoctorMihael that I have been asking about the many media proponents of global warming: to what extent does DoctorMichael have scientific knowledge to back up his opinion? Or, is he repeating back what he has heard from others?
ad infinatum...
We STILL don’t have a concensus. It’s called discussion, exchange of ideas, just as the Goreacles were exposed!
(That is in this country, despite the concerted efforts by liberals to squash it and make us more like Euroweenieland!)
What Hitler may or may have not done is entirely laid on him.
To assert that Darwin laid the foundation for Naziism is a smear of the first order, intentionally done, and done so to equate anyone in academia who questions ID as a Nazi.
It was about the cheapest shot possible, and Stein took it. I really was a big fan of his, but I’m reeling at the intellectual dishonesty of this movie. This was really beneath him.
There could have been a movie or television documentary about the ID movement and why universities don’t consider it science. Both sides could have had time to explain their perspectives. That would have been worth watching, and hopefully informative.
“Darwinists” = Nazis is IQ 60 stuff. It has no place in the discussion.
who makes you send your kids to public school?
I pointed out that the existance of proof makes fait impossible
What about them?
Watch the documentary and watch Prof. Dawkins spew his anti-religious bigotry.
Dawkins' personal opinions on a matter unrelated to his research has no bearing on the merits of his research. And it's his discoveries in the field of zoology, not his anti-religious ravings, that got him his academic position. If you read his academic papers, there's no mention of religion.
Mind you, I don’t care what you believe. I have some atheist friends who I talk “philosophy” with all day long.
I'm a practicing Catholic, FYI.
Also, There’s no chance whatsoever that Darwin saw an “evolution” of a species after on a few years - I’m talking about the birds on the island (I forgot the name of the island).
Of course not. What he found was evidence that suggested a hypothesis to him, for which he found more evidence. After his death, still more evidence validated parts of this hypothesis, and caused other parts to be modified somewhat. But in general the weight of the evidence is strong enough to have caused the hypothesis to graduate to become a working scientific theory.
But it's still a theory that is open the challange. The only problem is that if you want to challange it, you have to produce some evidence, which ID advocates have yet to do. Refusal to take seriously vacuous, evidence-free challanges to a theory can hardly be considered "censorship."
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.