Movie Expelled Gives Insight Into Eugenics

[drpmjhess]

I accept the weak version of it. I am acutely aware of the arugments for fine-tuning and I acknowledged their existence in my first post on this thread.

Yes, I know about the cosmological constant (and the other aspects of it although cosmological constant is the most impressive example ), but there is no need to discuss that here.

We’re agreed, then, except for the dieoff part.

 

[manualman]

Do you have any evidence for that? I do not see any evidence of design in this universe. Of course, the universe does look designed, but do you have another evidence for teleology?

I’m not one whose faith rests on an analytical Creationist proofs for God’s existence. The evidence that I find convincing is that of Christ Jesus who came, claimed to be God, and proved it by being raised from the dead after having been executed for his claims. THAT is the evidence I find conclusive and which gives credence and authority to the OTHER parts of Divine Revelation affirmed by those Christ left behind to teach us. Namely Scripture and Tradition properly interpreted.

To me, the systematic way in which nature behaves is supportive of the teleological worldview, but not proof. Christ is the proof.

 

[Jennifer123]

The ideology of hierarchy and of “Father knows best,” contributing to little things like clergy sex abuse, moving priests to different parishes rather than disciplining them, cover-ups by bishops, sale of parishioner-donated church property to pay for abuse lawsuits, etc. That’s an ideology as damaging to the credibility of Catholicism and to the spiritual wellbeing of the faithful as any imaginary “Darwinian ideology” at which you hint.

Petrus

This ideology you speak of isn’t such - it is proof that men are falliable and prone to error. These things you speak of aren’t held as truths by the Catholic Church.

The fact that you claim science has prevailed in finding a majority of support for the theory proves that ideology exists in science.

 

[drpmjhess]

The fact that you claim science has prevailed in finding a majority of support for the theory proves that ideology exists in science.

No – it just shows that the scientific method works, and that the evidence since 1859 has increasingly supported the theory of evolution. If it had not supported it, we would now have endowe3d chairs of intelligent design biology in major departments at great universities. We don’t have such chairs, for the same reason we don’t have endowed chairs of astrology or alchemy or flat earth geography.

Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The liberal position is to remove anything that prevents them from doing what a liberal wants to do. Or to cling to whatever will justify what they want to do. It varies depending on desire.

In this case most liberals are in favor of evolution because it is a justification for saying there is no God and no moral absolute.

Look, where do you get this notion that there are liberal and conservative scientists. They do not adopt political roles. They are scientists. Now i will agree that at the fringe, there are those who have subordinated science to the pursuit of an agenda, using science and achieving status as scientists for no reason other than to further an agenda. That has been admitted to by a few actually creationist scientists. But scientists do not have an agenda and desire for things to go in any particular direction per se.

Liberals favor evolution simply because the evidence favors evolution and they don’t generally approve of looking silly to folks around the globe as well as in the this country. You’re making this up on the fly. This is not a liberal/conservative argument. It is common sense backed by solid evidence versus total reliance on a book as biology, one written over the course of more than one thousand years and over 3 thousand years old. I don’t think we still even rely on Newton for everything anymore. Even Einstein was not right on everything. You cling to a religious belief that you need and there chuck science down the drain, all the while still driving a car, taking planes, using electricity, phones and computers. Science is fine as long as it does’nt invade your neat little theological world you have self-imposed around yoruself to feel safe.

In the end, science goes on, you can rant, and nobody cares.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This ideology you speak of isn’t such - it is proof that men are falliable and prone to error. These things you speak of aren’t held as truths by the Catholic Church.

The fact that you claim science has prevailed in finding a majority of support for the theory proves that ideology exists in science.

gravity i believe has a majority of support world wide. Is that also an ideology? I fail to see your point. Evolution is no ideology. It is a simple fact, backed up by reams of evidence, across multiple disciplines. Do you honestly believe that millions of people are knowingly wasting their time, all the while knowing it is false? Such a statement suggests a true inablity to think critically. Rather the question is: why do you need to cling to a belief not supported by the evidence, the Church or by most of the human beings inhabiting this planet? I suggest it is dependence on this for stablility in life. You have decided to idolize a book rather than God.

 

[Steve40]

This ideology you speak of isn’t such - it is proof that men are falliable and prone to error. These things you speak of aren’t held as truths by the Catholic Church.

The fact that you claim science has prevailed in finding a majority of support for the theory proves that ideology exists in science.

Good points. Without tension in science you end up with ideology. A sound questioning attitude is the mark of a good scientist. It’s unfortunate that many abandon this principal when it comes to popular theories.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If it is continually being reaffirmed it is not being questioned. Questioning tears down before it can build up. Questioning includes keeping an open mind to the point of scraping the whole idea if the evidence leads there. This is not the attitude of most scientists or science teachers and it is very sad. I believe this non-questioning attitude will leak into other areas of science and knowledge will be lost.

You don’t understand science. Scientific theories are put forth. They are submitted to the vast array of scientists around the world. If everyone or most seem to agree, then it is accepted as the best model put forth. That is the case with evolution. Those who wish to propose something else, have the burden of proving that they have a better scientific explanation for the evidence at hand. It must be testable by conventional scientific methodology. So far, creationism has not be able to put forth a single testable theory. NONE. Nor has ID. NONE.

Science is ever questioning. What in the world do you think is going on at research labs around the world? They are not reinventing the wheel I can assure you. They are testing their own pet side theories about all kinds of side issues. They do this in every single discipline. There are a plethora of string theory mathematical models. Some ore better than others. They continue to work on it, since no one has come up with a definitiive one yet. Science would simply not be science and we would be stagnant if questioning did not continue. That is what pushed DNA research. And guess what? DNA research now confirms evolution along darwinian lines. Ain’t it grand when everybody’s research tends to dovetail to one answer. A thinking person might conclude they just might be right.

 

[Steve40]

gravity i believe has a majority of support world wide. Is that also an ideology? I fail to see your point. Evolution is no ideology. It is a simple fact, backed up by reams of evidence, across multiple disciplines. Do you honestly believe that millions of people are knowingly wasting their time, all the while knowing it is false? Such a statement suggests a true inablity to think critically. Rather the question is: why do you need to cling to a belief not supported by the evidence, the Church or by most of the human beings inhabiting this planet? I suggest it is dependence on this for stablility in life. You have decided to idolize a book rather than God.

Reams of evidence? Where? Mutation is no longer a valid mechanism of one spicies tranforming into another. I could understand beleiving this in the 50’s but today it just doesn’t hold up to the information at hand. Where have you been? The idea of evolution by mutation has failed. Without a valid mechanism, why believe in it? Evolution by mutation is mathematically impossible and that’s a fact.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Then why is the questioning of evolution being scilenced?. They don’t want it questioned in schools where questions should be asked. When was the last time you questioned it?

Every scientist should question it at least once a week. How’s about questioning it for a day. Could you do it? Could you be God’s advocate, for a day?

You mistake unwillingness to listen to counter arguments for whether institutions be they university or private wish to expend limited monies to fund programs that start with the premise that the bible sets out the basis for how life arose on this planet. It’s just not good sense. I’m sure that the rightwing evangelical colleges are most happy to fund it, but thinking institutions look at the proposals and find little they want to waste money on. And with good reason. Common sense is the reason why creationism is not funded, not simple meanness as you would suggest or that somehow the atheists have control and are deliberately keeping it out.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Then why is the questioning of evolution being scilenced?. They don’t want it questioned in schools where questions should be asked. When was the last time you questioned it?

Every scientist should question it at least once a week. How’s about questioning it for a day. Could you do it? Could you be God’s advocate, for a day?

Finally an admission. You see Steve, scientists are not advocates for anybody, but the simple truth. You are an advocate for what you percieve as God’s will accepting the bible. as a science book. .But the vatican does not even agree with you. They agree with evolution. Until you get off this merrygo-round that science has to advocate for something other than truth, you’re arguments are simply disingenuous.

 

[drpmjhess]

Reams of evidence? Where? Mutation is no longer a valid mechanism of one spicies tranforming into another. I could understand beleiving this in the 50’s but today it just doesn’t hold up to the information at hand. Where have you been? The idea of evolution by mutation has failed. Without a valid mechanism, why believe in it? Evolution by mutation is mathematically impossible and that’s a fact.

Of course it is!

SpiritMeadow is ultimately right: 100,000 biologists could not care less what you few creationists rant on about in little listserv and chat-room ghettos. They just quietly get on with their productive work, leaving those of you who aren’t scientists – or who perhaps are scientist wannabees – continue fruitlessly to revile the science.

A decade from now evolutionary biology will be ten years farther along in its service of scientific knowledge; you will be ten years older, ten years closer to oblivion, still spinning your wheels saying there’s no evidence to support it. That claim will be as quaint and false and irrelevant then as it is now, but feel free to continue ranting, as scientists and theologians will continue to ignore you and Ben Stein!

Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I suspect that one day each of us will find that the creation story is far, far richer than anyone on any side of this has ever dreamed.

It is incredibly rich, but not in biology or science. It was not meant to be. The writers had little or no familiarity with either concept when they wrote the two accounts of creation.

 

[Steve40]

Of course it is!

SpiritMeadow is ultimately right: 100,000 biologists could not care less what you few creationists rant on about in little listserv and chat-room ghettos. They just quietly get on with their productive work, leaving those of you who aren’t scientists – or who perhaps are scientist wannabees – continue fruitlessly to revile the science.

A decade from now evolutionary biology will be ten years farther along in its service of scientific knowledge; you will be ten years older, ten years closer to oblivion, still spinning your wheels saying there’s no evidence to support it. That claim will be as quaint and false and irrelevant then as it is now, but feel free to continue ranting, as scientists and theologians will continue to ignore you and Ben Stein!

Petrus

Try questioning it for a day and see what happens. I’ll bet once you start questioning evolution you don’t stop because it’s full of holes only you can’t see it because you have bought in to it so hard. Give it up just for a day and see what happens. Look at it honestly without relying all these other yes men who have decided not to think for themselves.

Think for yourself. Why follow them like a sheep.

 

[Steve40]

Finally an admission. You see Steve, scientists are not advocates for anybody, but the simple truth. You are an advocate for what you percieve as God’s will accepting the bible. as a science book. .But the vatican does not even agree with you. They agree with evolution. Until you get off this merrygo-round that science has to advocate for something other than truth, you’re arguments are simply disingenuous.

Are you that naive that you believe all scientist are objective and have no tainted political or other personal agenda? You have greater faith than I do. I don’t trust them why do you?

I honestly don’t care if you don’t accept the Bible. It is a question of faith and if God doesn’t give that faith to you that’s not my problem, but science without questioning is dumb and will not stand the test of time.

Don’t take everything your beloved scientists say as gospel. Think for yourself.

 

[Jennifer123]

Well - I won’t go into what I am thinking about the sense of superiority that always seem to infect these types of discussions but to say that I am an uncritical thinker completely ignorant of the scientific principle is pretty bold. I don’t recall really saying all that much.

But to quell any misunderstanding, I am a college-educated SAHM, though with a liberal arts degree , married to a genetics major who works at one of the largest biotechnology companies in the world. Granted, I wish I could absorb more of my DH’s brilliance in things scientific, but I’m no slouch.

In any case, I never said it wasn’t a good theory, it’s as adequate as we can get through materialist means, but rather questioned that there’s overwhelming evidence suggesting that evolution is proven fact. That is far from the truth and evidence that a “darwinist” ideology exists.

 

[drpmjhess]

In any case, I never said it wasn’t a good theory, it’s as adequate as we can get through materialist means, but rather questioned that there’s overwhelming evidence suggesting that evolution is proven fact. That is far from the truth and evidence that a “darwinist” ideology exists.

Who suggested that “evolution is proven fact”?

 

[manualman]

Who suggested that “evolution is proven fact”?

Look back up a few posts. SpiritMeadow used exactly that word, “fact.” She also rather misunderstands the Vatican position. The Vatican does not ‘approve’ evolution, they approve of the use of scientific method to explain nature and reassure us that such attempts to find natural explanations for things are not a threat to our faith when understood properly.

The theory of evolution is far from a nice tidy package. Humanity likes to exaggerate its claims to mastery and understanding of the universe. That swagger and pride is what raises the hackles of many believers and propels them to reject the scientific method as the tool used to explore and understand. Such creationists fail to see that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Posts like SpiritMeadow’s on the other hand indicate she is unaware there is some nasty bathwater in the scientific community!

Biological research to date on a global basis best fits together with the theory that species did descend from simpler to more complex. That’s scientific method. But there are certainly gaping holes yet to be explained. There are likely major changes in store for biologists and things may yet be turned on their head like the physics world was when relativity was discovered. But we’ll find it when we find it. The Scripture stories tell us spiritual truth, not biology lessons. God’s no dummy. He is quite aware that humans tend to progress faster in technical knowledge than in maturity to use it properly. Why would anybody think him naive enough to give us a head start on the biological facts with Revelation?

 

[drpmjhess]

Look back up a few posts. SpiritMeadow used exactly that word, “fact.”

That swagger and pride is what raises the hackles of many believers and propels them to reject the scientific method as the tool used to explore and understand.

But there are certainly gaping holes yet to be explained.

Thanks Manualman.

 

[manualman]

Petrus, I think we agree.

Too many people of faith mistakenly think the word “science” is a synonym for “truth.” That’s why they get so riled up by the idea of evolution. The scientist, by definition can never draw a line and say “beyond this point, God did it supernaturally.” He can and should admit when science has yet to provide explanations for observed phenomenon. He cannot, however, throw in the towel and proclaim something NOT to have a natural explanation, for if he does that he quits being a scientist and starts being a preacher. This doesn’t mean he can’t BELIEVE something is a positive miracle, just not professionally.