In article <480E577E.5000708@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, TNW7z7z7z12345@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Jim Larson wrote:
> > 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 classes cannot teach ID because it
is
> >>>>*not* science. I'm fully in sup****t of creating high school
> >>>>comparative religion classes 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.
>
>
> You should have seen me a decade or so ago; I learned the hard way. But
> I'm old now (maybe the oldest here now that Tom is gone. I'm 56.), and I
> finally get that anger and insults don't persuade. Plus an escalating
> fight is too stressful.
>
> I also realized that if you're going to go the insult route you need to
> be really witty, and unfortunately, I'm humor-challenged.
>
> But more im****tant than knowing how to argue is knowing when to bother.
> And you guys certainly have that over me.
>
> So neither saint nor serial killer. Deluded procrastinator is
> probably more apt. :)
I wish I had your self-restraint,I did read something that amused me on
one of the science email lists I subscribe to. One chap had written a
question which on re-reading thought be a little brusque. One of the
replies was along the lines of "Don't worry, we're scientists, we've
trained long and hard to distinguish what someone says from how they say
it." Hopefully people know me enough here to know I'm not trying to be
nasty I'm just, well,a grumpy old bastard and don't mean much by it.
Unless I'm insulting Ron Paul of course that crazy ****er deserves every
insult he gets.
Ted
--
"I like the way you express yourself too, y'know, it's pithy yet
degenerate"
Woody Allen, Manhattan
|
