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

TNW wrote:

> Jim Larson wrote:
>> TNW wrote:
>>  
>>>Not responding to a specific post, but wanted to jump in.
>>>
>>>Regarding the Stein movie -- someone mentioned the link below.  I'd
>>>highly recommend it.   It's well-researched.  Also discusses each
>>>person who supposedly lost tenure, jobs, etc. due to a belief in
>>>Intelligent Design.
>>>
>>>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
>>>
>>>-----------
>>>
>>>Regarding the Hitler discussion - see this page on that same website.
>>>Scroll down to see what Stein cut from Darwin's position:
>>>
>>>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics
>>>
>>>Also, Stein knows that even the most atheistic believers in evolution
>>>(i.e., Dawkins) don't sup****t "Social Darwinism"  (i.e., the misuse of
>>>"survival of the fittest" as a rationale for public policy).   These
>>>scientists' views are the exact opposite (they sup****t assistance for
>>>the poor, health insurance for all, etc.).  Darwin himself would not
>>>have sup****ted "Social Darwinism."   So saying that Darwin contributed
>>>to Hitler's beliefs is equivalent to saying that belief in God
>>>contributed to 9/11.
>>>
>>>-----------
>>>
>>>Just as an FYI -- here's another excellent website explaining myths
>>>surrounding evolution, etc.
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/4hss6d
>>>
>>>------------
>>>
>>>Back to Stein -- one has to question his agenda.  The fact that he was
>>>given the names of evolutionary biologists who strongly believe in God
>>>but decided not to include them in the movie says it all.
>>>
>>>A response to one of Ken's paragraphs:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.  Which 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.
>>>
>>>By definition science does not and will not ever deal with supernatural
>>>phenomenon.  It deals only with the natural world and will not touch
>>>anything that is not testable (i.e., cannot be disproven).
>>>
>>>For example, high school science cl***** cannot teach ID because it is
>>>*not* science.   I'm fully in sup****t of creating high school
>>>comparative religion cl***** that discuss Creationism and ID (along
>>>with every religion's views on creation including those that have no
>>>conflict with evolution).  But there is no room in science for
>>>researchers who insert the supernatural into current scientific
>>>unknowns, because as soon as they do that, they are no longer doing
>>>science.
>>>
>>>I had a wise biology teacher in college who taught why one must never
>>>use science to either prove or disprove the existence God.  Which is
>>>why at times I disagree with Dawkins (when he says that an
>>>understanding of science leads to atheism) as much as I disagree with
>>>ID.
>>>
>>>As Tyler's link shows, there will always be gaps in science, which over
>>>time *always* get filled in, creating a new gap.   If your concept of
>>>God depends on the gaps in science, God will be a moving target. You'll
>>>have to keep altering your  belief/changing your concept of God
>>>everytime science fills in the next tiny piece.  Scientists who believe
>>>in God (and many do) have a concept that of God that is far above and
>>>beyond the minutiae of science.
>>>
>>>The ID people are trying to push their particular concept of God (based
>>>originally on Creationism and a literal interpretation of the Bible)
>>>via two falsehoods:  The first is by claiming it is science-based when
>>>it is not.   The second is by setting up a false dichotomy -- they
>>>ignore biologists who believe in God and evolution, and
>>>instead trot out only those who happen to be atheists. Then,
>>>despicably, they take it one step further, implying that those Godless
>>>scientists could put us on the road to Nazi-like beliefs.
>>>
>>>So how do scientists reconcile God and evolution?
>>>
>>>- they might believe that God created evolution (complete with random
>>>genetic mutations, etc.) to insure survival in a changing environment
>>>
>>>- OR they might believe that God jumps in from time to time to tweak
>>>evolution, but given the way gaps are always filled in via science,
>>>we'll never know God's exact role.
>>>
>>>- OR that God is so far beyond our brain's ability to conceptualize
>>>him, we cannot possibly discern his exact role in our world.
>>>
>>>I'm sure there are many other ways scientists reconcile God and
>>>evolution, but we aren't going to learn about them from Ben Stein.
>>>Giving the public the full picture would spoil his agenda, which is to
>>>set up a false "us versus them" polarization that can be later called
>>>upon for political purposes.
> 
> 
>> Wow.
>> 
>> (When you finally lose it, you're going to take out a small town. You
>> do know that, right?)
> 
> 
> How do you know I haven't already!!
>

See above. You're either bucking for sainthood or serial killer. Not sure 
which yet. 

> 
> Actually, I think it was the first hr. of the ABC debate that finally
> pushed me over the edge.  My head exploded and I now look like the South
> Park version of Britney Spears.  :)

Are you implying that lapel pin missteps are not the single greatest
threat 
to our way of life? 
 
> ...sigh...yeah, I know...obsessed...  But I believe the falsehoods
> pushed on people will be what finally destroys us.
> 

I admire your equanimity in these things. I know I'm not capable of it, so
I 
don't try, here or in real life. Yelling at folks tends to be oddly 
counterproductive. Go figure. 

-- 
Jim