"Expelled"

[RobbyS]

Ken Miller has got a piece about Expelled in the Boston Globe, Trouble ahead for science:the editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film’s co-producer, why he and Stein didn’t interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying “Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily.” In other words, showing a scientist who accepts both God and evolution would have confused their story line.

rossum

Why do you insist that “Expelled” rejects the concept of evolution? As for Collins, his own book is an argument for something like Intelligent Design.

 

[reggieM]

The Catholic Church must continue to educate children in both a theologically and a scientifically sophisticated way that does not set the stage for false conflicts later between science and religion.

There are false conflicts between science and religion – and there are true conflicts. I think the Catholic Church should continue to warn about the true conflicts between science and religion.

 

[ricmat]

ID/creationists have always viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.

Are you sure that your statement above is true?

Yep. Stein’s film is a great example. He didn’t interview any theists who accept evolution (although they are the great majority of Americans who accept evolution) because it would “confuse” his message.

Not to mention toss it in the dumpster. Would you like some more examples?

Wow. You have enough examples to prove that “ID/creationists have always viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.”

That’s quite amazing. Hard to believe. Both ID and creationists - all of them. And “always”. It’s very hard for me to believe that your statement is true.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well, “all of them” was your addition. It’s the Ricmat M.0.

But I see you didn’t want to see all the other examples. Probably a good choice, if you don’t want to think about it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Stein’s film is a great example. He didn’t interview any theists who accept evolution (although they are the great majority of Americans who accept evolution) because it would “confuse” his message.

Not to mention toss it in the dumpster. Would you like some more examples?

All those whom Stein is defending. What they question is not the concept but the specifics of the theory.

Apparently, he didn’t want to “confuse” things with any examples. For good reason.

Reply With Quote

 

[drpmjhess]

I think the Catholic Church should continue to warn about the true conflicts between science and religion.

Such as?

 

[AndyF]

PatThePoet:

I hardly take notice what people are doing at mass other than paying attention to the ritual. I’m so engrossed in my spiritual communication I hardly notice.

I make it a point to try to understand the homily and I don’t always so this is why a review prior to mass is good for perspective. I come in early to read the missal and reflect on the message, this way I can put what he says in perspective and context.

The other “christian” religions are not, and I know that upsets some here. The only true Church as you pointed out is the Church Christ established. The others, which incidentally are not religions but sects, were born out of providing some human mean. It should be remembered Christ established the perfect Church, so there is no provision for “Reforming” or other colorful wording that emphasizes the schismatic aspect of severing with Christ’s rules.

You will note there is a “christian” religion to meet every whim. One need merely “click the remote” to find one that suits his purpose. There are entertainment value churches where participation leaves one with the impression he has come out of an Elvis concert, some feed on discontent and differences, some will tell the participants everything they want to hear and they are saved so stop worrying, others the “don’t get off your couch” type where one need not expend any energy other than to dip hands in a bag of chips or popcorn.

So I think your headed in the right direction.

Andy

 

[rossum]

Why do you insist that “Expelled” rejects the concept of evolution? As for Collins, his own book is an argument for something like Intelligent Design.

I merely quoted Ken Miller. If you have problems with the what I quoted then take it up with Ken Milleer.

My purpose in posting here is to help PatThePoet to understand that the film’s apparent insistence that evolution must imply atheism is wrong. It was that aspect of the film that seemed to be causing problems and it was to that end that I quoted Ken Miller, who is an obvious example of the fact that accepting evolution does not require one to be an atheist. As I have said, Ken Miller is Catholic.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

ID/creationists have always viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.

Well, “all of them” was your addition. It’s the Ricmat M.0.

My M.O is to quote you exactly as you said things, which I did. Your quote didn’t say “some” creationists, or “seem to have always viewed.” The meaning of your post was quite clear. And quite revealing about you, just as you said it, without enhancement.

 

[Spirithound]

I have been going to Mass for about six months

I went into the theater a faithful Catholic perhaps considering a monastic life, I left the theater troubled.

Everybody else has explained the science very well. I would suggest that you not put your hopes so early into the monastic life. Get solid in your faith first, and keep listening to what God is telling you.

 

[The_Barbarian]

My M.O is to quote you exactly as you said things,

With a little editing, which you did.

Your quote didn’t say “some” creationists, or “seem to have always viewed.”

Didn’t say “all” , either, that was your enhancement. “Writers have always led unconventional lives” is true. But that doesn’t mean that that Wallace Stevens wasn’t a writer. It merely makes a true generalization about poets, without asserting that they all do. That was your “enhancement.”

The meaning of your post was quite clear.

Indeed, but that didn’t stop you from your usual habit of “improving” it a bit by adding something I didn’t say.

And quite revealing about you,

This one is more revealing of you than me, I think.

Stein would be proud of you.

 

[ricmat]

Barbarian, your unedited quote is shown here directly below (as it was shown in all my previous posts on this matter):

ID/creationists have always viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.

Your statement leaves no room for ID folks or creationists who do not “always view the truth as a troublesome complication.”

To which I replied previously:

Are you sure that your statement above is true?

The best thing for you to do at this point would be to admit that you made the post above in haste, and without thinking it through.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please don’t make personal comments, people. And remember, who the OP is, what his questions/concerns are, and respond to those, and so stay on topic. Thank you all.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
ID/creationists have always viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.

Your statement leaves no room for ID folks or creationists who do not “always view the truth as a troublesome complication.”

Of course it does. If I say American soldiers have always been loyal, that does not mean that there have not been some instances of disloyal American soldiers. Even if writers have always lived unconventional lives, it doesn’t mean Wallace Stevens was not a writer.

Are you sure that your statement above is true?

Yes. Your addition of “all” to my statement makes it false of course. That “enhancement” changes the meaning of my statement.

The best thing for you to do at this point would be to admit that you made the post above in haste, and without thinking it through.

By now, you should know that I write precisely what I mean, and that “enhancements” are not a good idea.

Ironically, this echos the OP, in which someone has bought into the ID “enhancement” of science, which asserts that science rejects God.

Seems to be a constant in these things.

 

[ricmat]

ID/creationists have always viewed the truth as a troublesome complication.

Barbarian, your post above speaks for itself. Note, there are no enhancements there.

In the interest of getting back on topic, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[reggieM]

Such as?

What religion would you like to know about?

 

[reggieM]

It is, of course possible for some religion to make claims that are inconsistent with reality.

Like Orthodox Judiasm, for example?

 

[The_Barbarian]

I can’t think of any claims of orthodox Judaisim that are inconsistent with anything in science. But then I’m not all that familiar with it. Which ones do you think are inconsistent with science?

 

[reggieM]

It is, of course possible for some religion to make claims that are inconsistent with reality.

I can’t think of any claims of orthodox Judaisim that are inconsistent with anything in science.

Sorry, I can’t understand what you’re saying except perhaps you think that “reality” is another word for “science”.

But then I’m not all that familiar with it.

That, apparently, hasn’t prevented you from making sweeping conclusions about “religion” and how it reflects “reality”.

Which ones do you think are inconsistent with science?

The teaching on how God created the world and human life as found in Genesis, as one of many. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, for example, ruled that the reading of an evolutionary textbook is unequivocally forbidden, because belief in evolutionary history is tantamount to heresy. If a textbook was indispensable for other purposes, Feistein directed that those pages containing references to evolution be torn out and discarded.

 

[steveandersen]

… Is there a God?

Yes.

DAWKINS SEEMS RIGHT,

About what?

He a good biologist

His adventures into theology… not so good

SCIENCE SEEMS RIGHT,

Pretty much, yeah

THE FOSSIL RECORD SEEMS RIGHT,

It gets better with each spade of dirt dug.

DARWIN SEEMS RIGHT.

Even without microbiology and genetics he was capable of incredible insight.
Modern work has pretty much upheld his basic premise.

IS GOD DEAD?

How can that be?

DARWINISM SEEMS THE WAY

The way to what?

It is perfectly useful tool for describing observable data.
That is about it.

BUT I WANT TO BE SURE

I NEED HELP!

What is the question?

Are you suggesting that evolution and faith are incompatible?

Are you looking for meaning in science?
It’s not there.