F
foolishmortal
Guest
I’ll see you on the philosophical branch of the Expelled arguments.
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
On the playground – just wait till recess!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
On the playground – just wait till recess!
A
Angela_Tate
Guest
So:The movie was all about those debates being stifled in the academic/scientific world.
Discuss the film overall:
The premise was ‘stifling’ occurs.
Did the film convince the viewer that the problem exists?
Did it fall short of supporting the claim?
If so on either, how/why?
Or just comment about whether or not you like the film and why.
That’s when you:**
Discuss particular segments of the film**:
Which scene(s) were most effective for you, the viewer? Why?
Did you appreciate the lineup of academics/scientists the director chose? Why?
Did any particular interview annoy you? When? Why?
Were there other academics/scientists you feel would have done a better job presenting the director’s claim?
Did a particular segment of the film portray the underlying philosophy accurately or was it misrepresented?
All that can keep the discussion about the film going.
A
Angela_Tate
Guest
That’s how it’s done
A
Angela_Tate
Guest
This works, too
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
And I was merely replying to a PREVIOUS poster, who said the film sank without a trace. My remark was in the context of re-naming it to make it ‘popular.’
The film makes excellent points and valid about stifling opposing (read: Christian) viewpoints in academia.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No debates have been stifled. Academic journals of biology are filled to overflowing with debates – sometimes quite rancorous – about many different topics. Younger scientists can make their career by overturning established theories.
The debate about evolution which the makers of Expelled claim is being stifled took place long ago, and has come to its conclusion. It would be silly for physicists to waste time on arguing whether gravity is a coherent theory, and anyone who claimed that debate about whether falling is caused by an intelligent agent would be regarded as a crank. The same holds true for biology.
The “martyrs” of Expelled complaining that debate is being stifled would be like geographers complaining that geography conferences won’t give a hearing to the theory that the earth is flat. That theory might have made sense twenty-five hundred years ago, but it makes sense no longer. It is as pointless to complain about debates on “whether evolution happens” being stifled, as it would be to complain that geography conventions no longer include sessions on “the flatness of the earth.”
StAnastasia
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
From what I’ve seen the movie was right on.Scientists & the medical field seem to hold on to established theories with a death grip.Especially if it’s politically expedient.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Not true at all – you need to learn about science. When a theory fails to explain the data, scientists and medical researchers come forward with new explanations. When evolution by natural selection fails to explain the data of species diversification, a new theory will be proposed to explain what evolution cannot.
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
That is how science in theory is supposed to work in a perfect world, but doesn’t.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Sure, CrackerMom, I agree this is not a perfect world. But examine the alignments on each side
On one side you have (1) Ben Stein, who hawks eye drops;
(2) Premise Media, publicly exposed as liars
in the making of their “documentary,” and (3) a handful of bitter academics who didn’t get tenure.On the other side you have (1) hundreds of thousands of scientists, including geologists, biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, women and men who have earned doctorates, published extensively, and dedicated their careers to the discovery of scientific truth;
(2) hundreds of professional organizations, and (3) Pope Pius XII, Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict XVI, and many bishops and clergy who accept evidence for the theory of evolution.Its the word of a lying film crew and a scientifically ignorant eye-drop salesman against the word of the Church and hundreds of thousands of scientists. You’re right – it’s not a perfect world!
StAnastasia
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
In Ann Coulter’s Godless, there is an excellent chapter detailing exactly what happens when scientific theory, true though it may be, is not ‘politically correct.’
As a former science writer, I learned one thing: 'Who’s funding this research?"
F
foolishmortal
Guest
Nobody claims there’s a flat Earth. You won’t even hear the FSSP believing in that. No one is debating gravity either. Macroevolution, however, is, and by reputable scientists (some, who were converts of macroevolution), not that the arrogance of the social “winners” who wrote history and prehistory would admit that. In fact, they’ll scare the dissent out of most.
Regarding popes, I think we should see what they really said. They probably did not have the minority report delivered by scientists who converted from macroevolution and discovering what would undermine Darwin’s natural selection, in his own words, required a little more science than what was available in previous papacies. Now, we have it, but the Pope’s not allowed to hear it. Also, popes have backed evil regimes, before realizing what evil designs the regimes had.
Macroevolution was taught in Communist China by Mao before his little red book. Interesting. It really is the other pseudo-scientific grounds for getting rid of “useless eaters” other than “man-made global warming”. We know where most of the contracepting goes on. It’s mostly not to neighborhoods where George Soros lives, but mostly to minority neighborhoods and where people are foolish enough to use them, like in places of higher learning. They are probably seen as truly feeble-minded “useful idiots”. No offence to those bamboozled by them into contracepting or aborting their child, but these are arrogant people and they very likely see you as that as well as those who sell their faulty macroevolution with a little Christian bow on top that says “theistic”. If the Church has been fooled by people like Hitler, don’t feel bad. The Masonic Order is very cunning.
What does it really matter if popes and bishops have accepted macroevolution, anyway? They aren’t scientists, right? This is the convoluted logic of the Masons and their lackeys: weapons of mass distraction and detraction, for that matter.
Regarding popes, I think we should see what they really said. They probably did not have the minority report delivered by scientists who converted from macroevolution and discovering what would undermine Darwin’s natural selection, in his own words, required a little more science than what was available in previous papacies. Now, we have it, but the Pope’s not allowed to hear it. Also, popes have backed evil regimes, before realizing what evil designs the regimes had.
Macroevolution was taught in Communist China by Mao before his little red book. Interesting. It really is the other pseudo-scientific grounds for getting rid of “useless eaters” other than “man-made global warming”. We know where most of the contracepting goes on. It’s mostly not to neighborhoods where George Soros lives, but mostly to minority neighborhoods and where people are foolish enough to use them, like in places of higher learning. They are probably seen as truly feeble-minded “useful idiots”. No offence to those bamboozled by them into contracepting or aborting their child, but these are arrogant people and they very likely see you as that as well as those who sell their faulty macroevolution with a little Christian bow on top that says “theistic”. If the Church has been fooled by people like Hitler, don’t feel bad. The Masonic Order is very cunning.
What does it really matter if popes and bishops have accepted macroevolution, anyway? They aren’t scientists, right? This is the convoluted logic of the Masons and their lackeys: weapons of mass distraction and detraction, for that matter.
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
Yeah, I don’t quite get using the popes for reference when it’s convenient, either.
M
Monty_Arch
Guest
Macroevolution is not religion,but science…
F
foolishmortal
Guest
It’s a pseudoscience using scientific terminology and tools. It’s like how a religion starts with a dogma and then its leaders exegete it and any scriptures they have. The Church just happens to be able to declare things of faith infallibly (but, since God is the source of truth, this issue of our origins matter, as macroevolution not only contradicts Scripture; it contradicts science). That’s what happens with macroevolution. It was borne in the context of the eugenic-thinking of snooty, educated haters. Even if he didn’t intend to go eugenic, Darwin did (as evidenced in the quote spoken in the movie) and his environment may have subconsciously affected his interpretation of what he saw in the Galapagos, just as one’s environment. We are fallen and so we tend to desire power and, upon success, suppress any other theories and beliefs, especially the true ones (false ones are right to suppress, for its believers, at least, by The Church). The movie shows how his theory was debunked by science and yet the farce goes on. Why, if this not be a turf war, does Dawkins not get sent away or laughed off campus for claiming he thinks we may have come down on crystals and other non-scientific stuff. He says it, because he is cocky and believes he can get away with science fiction because his buddies are in charge of science departments.
They also don’t apologize, btw, for Piltdown Man (their Galileo scandal), despite the fact The Pope apologizing for its treatment of Galileo (the story of which we are given in school, from what I’ve read, wasn’t the full story), nor do they punish those who doctor results that say man created global warming.
They also don’t apologize, btw, for Piltdown Man (their Galileo scandal), despite the fact The Pope apologizing for its treatment of Galileo (the story of which we are given in school, from what I’ve read, wasn’t the full story), nor do they punish those who doctor results that say man created global warming.
C
Cracker_Mom
Guest
My son recently showed me an article in a science publication that questions much of Galileo’s theory on the formation/structure of the universe…So, even what Galileo proposed may not be gospel.
That Dawkins seems a genuinely creepy & disturbed man.
M
Monty_Arch
Guest
Macroevolution exists on its own merits, it matters not if it is used by eugenecists and not used by creationists. We see macroevolution at work all the time. For example, dog breeds,agricultural hybrids.
F
foolishmortal
Guest
I’m pretty sure a dog of any breed is still a dog. A labradoodle is no less a dog.
Undoing Judeo-Christianity’s influence in the world actually is the intention for macroevolution. The Commies and Nazis, not that there’s a real difference, both used it for that end. Before that, there may not have been human experimentation and sterilizations till around the turn of the last century, but the desire for the deaths of their unwanteds was still there. They just tried to weed them out by breeding those they felt were fit. They had to make us like animals to think eugenically. That cold thinking, plus some similar looking animals Darwin saw, made it something that could be sold as “scientific”. Natural selection, guided or not, became as irrefutable as gravity and the rest of scientific understanding was forced to be stuck in that box. With Darwin’s theory unravelled, it’s been unmasked as the religious turf war against The Church it has always been under Freemasonry. We don’t have to believe the Creation story happened exactly as written, but we don’t have to believe in the only direct opposite theory: a false premise and all errors stemming from it. Still, some scientists have tried to understand how Genesis happened as we can understand it. “As we can understand it” should be humbling, but, in a comunity that doesn’t fear bad PR from Alienboy Dawkins and Jesusnapper Coordinator (P.T.) Myers. This pseudoscience, like labotomies in the early to mid 20th century, is a fad that no one wants to be on the other side of. Ben Stein doesn’t give a care. Others are starting to push through the holes in the theory and its enemies are like the cornered wounded dog: it still can bite, but it’s getting weaker and showing it, thanks to torchbearers like Jack Cashill, Ben Stein and a few others. Even if Expelled was made for the growing demand of the product, it’s enough to force out the truth of the errors of macroevolution faster and for a wider audience.
Undoing Judeo-Christianity’s influence in the world actually is the intention for macroevolution. The Commies and Nazis, not that there’s a real difference, both used it for that end. Before that, there may not have been human experimentation and sterilizations till around the turn of the last century, but the desire for the deaths of their unwanteds was still there. They just tried to weed them out by breeding those they felt were fit. They had to make us like animals to think eugenically. That cold thinking, plus some similar looking animals Darwin saw, made it something that could be sold as “scientific”. Natural selection, guided or not, became as irrefutable as gravity and the rest of scientific understanding was forced to be stuck in that box. With Darwin’s theory unravelled, it’s been unmasked as the religious turf war against The Church it has always been under Freemasonry. We don’t have to believe the Creation story happened exactly as written, but we don’t have to believe in the only direct opposite theory: a false premise and all errors stemming from it. Still, some scientists have tried to understand how Genesis happened as we can understand it. “As we can understand it” should be humbling, but, in a comunity that doesn’t fear bad PR from Alienboy Dawkins and Jesusnapper Coordinator (P.T.) Myers. This pseudoscience, like labotomies in the early to mid 20th century, is a fad that no one wants to be on the other side of. Ben Stein doesn’t give a care. Others are starting to push through the holes in the theory and its enemies are like the cornered wounded dog: it still can bite, but it’s getting weaker and showing it, thanks to torchbearers like Jack Cashill, Ben Stein and a few others. Even if Expelled was made for the growing demand of the product, it’s enough to force out the truth of the errors of macroevolution faster and for a wider audience.
- Status