On Apr 20, 8:52=A0pm, Weirdwolf <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Ken McElhaney <mcelha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
innews:54de6f1e-3e04-4e29-a70a=
-475de7bc7f26@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 4:06=A0pm, Weirdwolf <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Ken McElhaney <mcelha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> >> news:f944cba5-6920-41c9-
> >> 8260-a8624d1ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > Just saw it this morning, pretty decent stuff though it's more
> >> > serious than "funny" as the ads for it suggest. The most
> >> > interesting aspect was watching hardcore Darwinian scientists admit
> >> > that they know absolutely nothing about how life (i.e. the first
> >> > single cell organism) was formed on Earth and yet in the same
> >> > breath rule out "Intelligent Design". =A0Gee guys...if you admit
you
> >> > don't know...And yet the theories they propose (such as the
> >> > combination of the necessary elements forming on the back of a
> >> > crystal...I'm not making this up) make "Intelligent Design" look
> >> > pretty darn sane.
>
> >> > The ending of the film is even more astounding as one simple
> >> > question gets the most unlikely answer from one of the most visable
> >> > Darwinian proponent/athiests/whatever in today's media.
>
> >> > Good job, Ben Stein...anyone?
>
> >> =A0Before you praise this movie Ken you may wish to see the special
> >> that Scientific American put together, basically this is about as
> >> much a do***entary onevolutionas "Bowling for Colombine" is on gun
> >> control.
>
> > At least you admit that you haven't seen the movie.
>
> =A0No but I intend to, it's that nasty littlesciencetraining in me that
> wants to examine all the evidence. However I have been reading about the
> rise of the I.D. variation on creationism for many years now and are
> familiar with their methods and arguements.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> =A0They actually put out several stories in a special email,
including
> >> one
> > =A0on
> >> the main misrepresentations in the film.this might be a good place to
> >> star
> > t
> >> as a basic
> >> rebuttal.http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=3Dsciam-reviews-ex
> > pelled
>
> > Let's take it one at a time;
>
> > 1) ) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas
> > to eugenics and the Holocaust.
>
> > Uhm, no. What the film does do is connect how the "science" of
> > eugenics was warped and modified by Hitler in order to justify his
> > treatment of "lesser" peoples.
>
> Eugenics is not natural selection. You could make a better arguement
that
> the holocaust was influenced by the long scale religious persecution of
> jews by the Christian church.Evolutionis not "red in tooth and claw" it
> selects for advantage, alturism is one method of gaining an advantage.
In
> fact it is through the knowledge of evolutionry theory that we
understand
> that homo sapians are not divided into sub-species but exhibit
variation.
> In words you may appreciate,we are all equal under god. =A0
>
> > 2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
>
> > Yes, that was pretty obvious although the amount of time on the
> > "speech" in the film was less than a minute. I suppose the rant was
> > against the standing ovation he got which also looked staged, but big
> > whoop as the most powerful moments of the film were already
> > presented.
>
> =A0I haven't seen the film but the view of several people I have
read/hear=
d
> state that this is not how it was put forward.
>
> > 3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a
> > different movie.
>
> > Of that I have no doubt, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to be
> > interviewed. After all, the main thrust of the film was how some
> > scientists have been either expelled or punished for mearly bringing
> > up the subject of Intelligent Design even if they took no position on
> > it. So knowing that, why would any scientist get within a mile of this
> > film?
>
> I'm currently reading one of Steven Jay Goulds books on natural history,
> he quite willing went head to head in debates on the matter as have
other
> big name scientists. You do have to wonder about the motivations of the
> films staff when they lie outright to several people at the onset.
>
> > 4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost
> > his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
>
> > I'd say that's sorta right even if the film didn't quite state exactly
> > his "employed" status. It does state that reps from the Smithsonian
> > declined any interviews which if true didn't help their case.
>
> Did you listen to the podcast of the interview one of the associate
> producers stated that they went to the Smithsonian with a camera crew
and
> without an appointment which is why they were thrown out. Why should the
> Smithsonian comment on a story about a member of their staff, it would
> hardly be professional of them.
>
> > 5)Sciencedoes not reject religious or "design-based" explanations
> > because of dogmatic atheism.
>
> > No, it's just the ones who bring it up that get slapped down.
>
> =A0For which you have no evidence, the re****t about the chap at the
> Smithsonian was produced by a pro-ID advocate and not read into the
> congressional record. In fact in one of the appendices is a collection
of
> emails from his superiors at the Smithsonian which state that he is not
> to be given any form of "punishement" for his ID beliefs.
> What he did do however is subvert the peer review process by publi****ng
> an article in a magazine reviewed only by himself, a definite no no in
> scientific circles.
> =A0As you may have noticed I like to talk, I love to debate,explore
ideas
> learn new things.It's the scientist in me.
> Ben Stein however has a differing viewpoint,
> 'What would you like to say to Darwin?
>
> "You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy woman, why don=92t you
just
> live quietly out in the countryside and not torture us with your half-
> baked suppositions, which have caused so much misery?"'
> =A0Truly a man who believes in intellectual debate it seems.
>
> > 6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious
> > people acceptevolution.
>
> > 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. ID is
> nothing more or less than an attempt to get creationism and Christian
> religion taught in school. To show that some scientists are religious
> would make this harder to do.
>
> >> =A0I'm not sure if you know this but I studied biochemistry at
> >> university
> > and
> >> so this subject is of interest to me even though I admit that my
> >> knowledge
>
> >> now is limited to reading the less technical papers and I am a little
> >> out of date.
>
> > So you haven't seen the film and you haven't kept up with
> > biochemistry...and this makes you qualified to judge the film on what
> > basis?
>
> So tell me Ken exactly what is your specialised knowledge of
evolutionary
> biology or any branch of biology? when was the last time that you took
> cl***** ongeneticsand comparative anatomy for example? In fact when was
> the last time you cracked a text book on the subject?
> =A0The chap being interviewed was an associate producer. He stated on
more=
> than one occasion that he "was not a scientist" he claimed he had no
> knowledge of the "wedge strategy" or on the findings of the judge in the
> Dover case. It appears that I am more informed than him about the very
> basics of the film.
> =A0I am no longer a scientist,just as I am no longer a martial artist. I
> haven't trained in years, however I could still teach the basics of
both.
> =A0The knowledge is still in my head and I take an interest in both
> subjects, in fact the last thing I read before replying to you was a
> paper on the lung capacity of maniraptorans. I still read New scientist
> and scientific american as well as some of the more specialised
> publications, I'm just not that up to date on the aspects of plant
> biochemistry that interested me. =A0
> =A0If you have any questions of the mechanics ofevolutionI would be more
> than happy to try to explain them to you.
>
> >> =A0I.D. gives us NO answers, it obscures the work done by scientists
> >> and pretends to be scientific but has none of the rigor.
>
> > Wow, you have certainly jumped to a conclusion that's not in the
> > film.
>
> =A0No, I haven't jumped to conclusions it is what ID is and my years of
> reading about the subject have helped form those views, there is
noscience=
involved and cannot be because it takes a metaphysical viewpoint.
> =A0This is true of ALLsciencenot just biology, as soon as you say that
> god did it you remove the need for inqury, you have no cause and effect.
> =A0Anything could happen at anytime due to the action or inaction of a
> deity. That is a very very basic part of scientific methodology, if they
> didn't make that clear I do have to wonder just how techincial they got.
> =A0Various testable hypothesis have been suggested by ID proponents but
> without fail they fail the simplest of basic tests, the very bedrock
ofsci=
ence.
>
> >> It replaces a I don't
> >> know but I am going to explore,to ponder,to experiment,to sift
> >> through the
>
> >> data with, my choice of deity did it no matter the evidence may show.
> >> It i
> > s
> >> a dead-end, and intellectual cul-de-sac.
>
> > Which is stated by one scientist in the film. You see, both sides were
> > presented.
>
> =A0One voice amongst how many? Given how much time to explain.
>
>
>
> > Yet the scientific community has no explaination of the origins of
> > life on Earth, that is certainly without dispute, only some theories
> > that as of yet cannot be proven. =A0Which gets to the heart of the
film,=
> > not that Intelligent Design is the answer or even that strong a
> > possibility, but the intentional qua****ng of any debate that can
> > include it. =A0When the odds of how the right elements could've
combined=
> > by accident to form the first living cell are calculated, the
> > effective answer is
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What movie are you talking about. Lots of word talking about a movie
but never mentioning the name of the movie.
Miguel Melgar
|
