Re: Expelled...not bad....anyone?

In article <Xns9A86E8AF2F3983v234oiwofui3284af93@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,=20
larsonjmR.E.M.O.V.E.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>=20
> > Weirdwolf wrote:
> >> In article <05dd0ce5-aa3f-4c8b-ba28-67fe78472b17
> >> @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, mcelhaney@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
> >>> On Apr 20, 7:52=C2=A0pm, Weirdwolf <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>> > Ken McElhaney <mcelha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> >>> >
innews:54de6f1e-3e04-4e29-a70a-475de7bc7f26@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> > com:=20
> >=20
> >>> > > 6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious
> >>> > > people accept evolution.
> >>> >
> >>> > > It presents the personal viewpoints of some scientists who
reject
> >>> > > religion and propose their "fantasy" future where it all goes
the
> >>> > > way of the Greek myths. The film does not state that this is
true
> >>> > > of all Darwinian scientists.
> >>> >
> >>> > The associate producer chap states in the interview that they did
> >>> > not include religious scientists because it would confuse the
issue=
..
> >>>=20
> >>> Again, you're taking something and making into something else. It
let
> >>> the "fantasy" view of one scientist play out to give some
explainatio=
n
> >>> as to why some Darwinians are so adament about not even mentioning
> >>> I.D.  At no time is this "fantasy" presented as true of ALL
Darwinian
> >>> scientists.
> >>
> >> I directly quoted the associate producer,this was an attempt to make
i=
t
> >> appear that "Darwinian scientists" are atheists, something that
still=
=20
> >> meets with disdain in a lot of the U.S. By doing this they have=20
> >> artificially created a belief that you are either for Evolution or
for=
=20
> >> God, a common technique used by the ID people.
> >>  Oh and by the way, no credible scientist is "Darwinian" the term is=
=20
> >> derogatory one used because it implies that the works of Darwin are
> >> seen as sacrosanct and are the same views on evolution that we have
> >> today.=20
> >=20
> > Just noticed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruse
> >=20
> > "Ruse takes the position that it is possible to reconcile the
Christian
> > religion with Evolutionary Theory, unlike, for example, Richard
Dawkins
> > or Phillip E. Johnson."
> >=20
> > So, they actually did include a (I assume) religious man; they just
> > chose to laugh at him rather than dilute their dichotomy.
>=20
> Isn't this a rather transparent strawman? Why is anyone even debating
it?=
=20

Because it helps to show the motives and tactics of the people behind=20
the movie?
 In the scientific American podcast one of the people tells the=20
associate producer that he was raised Catholic and yet still accepts
the=20
evolution is the best explanation. The  AP guy then tells him that his=20
view is not that of a Catholic of the "mainstream",which appears to be=20
contradicted by the Catholic church and quotes from several popes.
--=20
"I like the way you express yourself too, y'know, it's pithy yet=20
degenerate"
Woody Allen, Manhattan