Posted on 04/28/2008 12:01:40 PM PDT by Delacon
Mr. Derbyshire should see the movie before making such enormous leaps of judgement. Bad form.
We’re not talking about creationism. We’re talking about intelligent design, which is in fact different.
I would also point out that the rise of western science and technology took place under Christian auspices. Darwin was late to the party.
“He is not even saying that Intelligent Design theory is right, if I understand him.”
It isn’t even a theory at all.
Pastore: Is there anything connected with the hopes of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of this country?
Wilson: No sir, I don't believe so.
Pastore: Nothing at all?
Wilson: Nothing at all.
Pastore: It has no value in that respect?
Wilson: It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with whether we are good painters, good sculptors, great poets. I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending the country except to make it worth defending.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse here, tpanther, but ID has not done anything to suggest that it’s science. It tries to poke holes in existing scientific thought, which is fair, and actually a very good thing.
But “criticism of evoltion” does not equate to “ID is correct.”
It’s not even an either/or question. Let’s suppose evolution is wrong. That doesn’t prove anything else. It doesn’t even suggest anything else. ID needs to provide evidence, instead of criticism, to even qualify as science.
I don’t mind if it’s taught in public schools, but it shouldn’t be a required class nor classified as science, because it’s not science. If we decide that the public schools can offer classes in islam, the Christian Bible, or whatever, that’s okay with me.
LOL. Can you send me a link?
Someone who was educated and clever hoaxed his British colleagues. Many scientists figured out pretty quickly that Piltdown didn't fit and ignored it. Science finally used a new technique in the 1950s to disprove it for good.
Do you have some other point to make?
Remember “Nebraska man”?
A pig tooth that fooled one guy and an artist?
What about it? Do you have some point to make about that one too?
Or are you just trying to smear several different professions all at once just because they deal with evolutionary subjects? I'm surprised you didn't call them Nazis, as that seems to be in vogue lately.
But if you want to play guessing games, how about the millions of fossils that are just as they are claimed to be? And that support the theory of evolution? How about all of those? (Or don't the creationist websites deal with them?)
Look at the list closely, Expelled pulled in only $2800/screen. To theaters as empty as that you have to go down the list to #42 The Endless Summer II (which I recall bombed big time)
It's pulled in nearly $3 million in each of it's first 2 weekends, with almost no drop-off,
Check the dailies, it's dropped 50% from last weekend
What would you like a link to?
Ahhhh...you mean like liberals like algoreacle and the climate?
Sad to say, but liberals make virtually EVERYTHING they touch a political problem and this is my WHOLE argument.
Well, that and free speech.
If it’s not science, I’m all good but don’t come up with absurd statements like “it’s not science” implying it can NEVER be proven or never be scientific, when EVERYONE KNOWS science is all too often concensus, is very fluid and has yet to be determined, defined, or has had it’s final chapter written let alone etched in stone.
THIS is the crux of the movie...I think no intelligence allowed is biting but it’s the truth, it’s not about science at all but control, on either side.
If it's not too much trouble.
From Wiki (emphasis added):
The term "Age of Enlightenment" can more narrowly refer to the intellectual movement of The Enlightenment, which advocated reason as the primary basis of authority. Developing in France, Britain and Germany, the Enlightenment influenced most of Europe, including Russia and Scandinavia. The era is marked by such political changes as governmental consolidation, nation-creation, greater rights for common people, and a decline in the influence of authoritarian institutions such as the nobility and church.I believe this is when science really began to take off.After the revolution of knowledge commenced by René Descartes and Isaac Newton, and in a climate of increasing disaffection with repressive rule, Enlightenment thinkers believed that systematic thinking might be applied to all areas of human activity, and carried into the governmental sphere, in their explorations of the individual, society and the state. Its leaders believed they could lead their states to progress after a long period of tradition, irrationality, superstition, and tyranny which they imputed to the Middle Ages. The movement helped create the intellectual framework for the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions, Poland's Constitution of May 3, 1791, Russia's 1825 Decembrist Revolt, the Latin American independence movement, and the Greek national independence movement. In addition, Enlightenment ideals were influential in the Balkan independence movements against the Ottoman Empire, and many historians and philosophers credit the Enlightenment with the later rise of classical liberalism, socialism, democracy, and modern capitalism.
The Age of Enlightenment receives modern attention as a central model for many movements in the modern period. Another important movement in 18th century philosophy, closely related to it, focused on belief and piety. Some of its proponents, such as George Berkeley, attempted to demonstrate rationally the existence of a supreme being. Piety and belief in this period were integral to the exploration of natural philosophy and ethics, in addition to political theories of the age. However, prominent Enlightenment philosophers such as Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume questioned and attacked the existing institutions of both Church and State. The 19th century also saw a continued rise of empiricist ideas and their application to political economy, government and sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology.
The continent of Europe had been ravaged by religious wars in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. When political stability had been restored, notably after the Peace of Westphalia and the English Civil War, an intellectual upheaval overturned the accepted belief that mysticism and revelation are the primary sources of knowledge and wisdom. ...
A common misconception is to equate the theory evolution with natural selection. Long before Darwin, folks were observing evolution. He just explained the mechanism, natural selection.
Where are the statesmen these days.
No I didn’t, Ben Stein did.
You haven’t done yourself any favors, with trying to paint Christian conservatives with such a broad brush, so trying to distract from that simply won’t work!
Go back and read the point about Letterman and O’Reilly...and even if he didn’t watch the movie, I’ve yet to see a shred of evidence he knows what he’s talking about scientifically, historically or otherwise.
He merely sounds like another angry fearful liberal afraid of being on the losing end of an argument or admitting godless liberals in academia aren’t interested in science but control.
That’s what’s known as the Whig view of history. It’s a very partial view, which ignores the Christian roots of the Enlightenment.
I’d suggest that you read Lynn Thorndyke’s books, particular his History of Magic and Experimental Science.
Also useful are several of Alfred North Whitehead’s books.
Well said.
Find some other mechanisms, they abound.
The value should be measured by its arguments and scientific value it presents to the audience.
Darwinists are Nazis is not a good argument. Life is too complicated to have developed by itself is not good science. It's an argument, but only in the sense that an assertion that we don't really exist all, but are each having an elaborate hallucination is an argument.
Geez, could be, but would you like to show me some evidence of that?
ID doesn't offer evidence. It's not testable. It's not science, and any reasonable person would acknowledge that, even if they don't like it.
Good questions.
However, you need to add a few layers. I will agree there’s nothing more annoying than an atheist that just won’t shut up about it. You don’t believe in god, we get it, just leave the rest of us alone, etc.
However, equally annoying is the other extreme, people who believe in god and won’t shut up about it. Yes we get it, you believe in god, you go to church...can you please leave me alone?
My point is that we shouldn’t deal in extremes. So instead of asking what effort he/she made to determine whether god exist, maybe you should ask if that question is even relevant to the person. I think one can have a long happy life not spending time pondering the existence of god. many see it as a waste of time in that it can never be proven. Many feel otherwise. No big deal.
As for your part 2, people who blame god for getting divorced, not getting into the college they wanted to, not being able to find their car keys, or the death of a loved one are just plain silly.
One thing I do know is that there is an almost unlimited supply of pain and suffering in the world. Some of those who suffer or live in abject poverty are guilty. Most aren’t. If god is concerned about this how does he show it? Beats me. Maybe you get all the suffering wiped clean in heaven and relax on fluffy pillows. grow wings...or if your a Muslim maybe you get 72 virgins. Who knows.
But why think about it? Nothing can be proven. So live your life, be happy, be sad, whatever...just mind your own business to the fullest extent possible.
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.