T
twinc
Guest
Anyone seen this movie…it has not reached us in the uk yet but I am hoping to see it or get a video or dvd.Anyone seen it and care to comment - twinc
- Status
J
JaredR
Guest
Yes, I’ve seen it. It’s pretty good.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
I live in the UK and i have it, it is truly awful, a festival of ignorance and stupidity.
S
Shin
Guest
Buy it. Watch it. Share it with all your buddies and give it as a gift for Christmas.
Nuff said.
Great movie!!!
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Is this truly the level of this forum? Where people consider that a good movie! I am flabber gasted…
youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg
youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg
T
twinc
Guest
where did you get it from and is it UK compatible - twinc
J
JaredR
Guest
What didn’t you like about it specifically?
A
AlbertBall
Guest
The extreme misunderstanding of academia, view the clip i posted above.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
internet… if you email me i will send you a link.
M
Matthias123
Guest
I reject the arguments of the movie. There needs to be more than a lack of positive evidence for the forming of specified complexity under naturalism in order for divine causation to be argued; otherwise this would be a “God of the gaps”. So basically, unless the intelligent design folks can give solid, credible, positive evidence that specified complexity cannot form under naturalism, then there is no benefit in talking about ad hoc divine causation. Right now, as far as I know, there is positive evidence that specified complexity can form under naturalism.
So if this is the case, why are we talking about ad hoc causation? If you hold that a Supreme Being moves all entities from potency to act, then ad hoc causation is not necessary – it is all caused by God. What evolution has provided is the possibility of a “blind watchmaker” under an atheistic worldview – complexity is no longer irrefutable evidence for a designer. This does not imply that the “watchmaker” is blind by necessity, but it is not possible for him to blind. So the doctrine of the creation of life has rmoved into the theological and metaphysical domain.
I believe that this “evolution vs creation” phenomenon is mainly a protestant/fundamentalist conception that occurred because they took Sacred Scripture out of its authoritative preaching matrix. Heck, the Origin of Species was never even on the Index of Forbidden Books – it was never banned. Cardinal Newman wrote in the 19th century – if my memory serves me right it was 1893 – that evolution could be seen as a manifestation of Divine Providence. The Church officially declared it was not contrary to the faith (although not necessarily accepting it) in 1953, decades before the issues with the school systems in the United States. If the Catholic Church is ambiguous at all in its position, it is because it is keeping to a broad position to prevent us from being attacked by Protestantism that may gain converts from us by claiming to be more “biblical”.
So if this is the case, why are we talking about ad hoc causation? If you hold that a Supreme Being moves all entities from potency to act, then ad hoc causation is not necessary – it is all caused by God. What evolution has provided is the possibility of a “blind watchmaker” under an atheistic worldview – complexity is no longer irrefutable evidence for a designer. This does not imply that the “watchmaker” is blind by necessity, but it is not possible for him to blind. So the doctrine of the creation of life has rmoved into the theological and metaphysical domain.
I believe that this “evolution vs creation” phenomenon is mainly a protestant/fundamentalist conception that occurred because they took Sacred Scripture out of its authoritative preaching matrix. Heck, the Origin of Species was never even on the Index of Forbidden Books – it was never banned. Cardinal Newman wrote in the 19th century – if my memory serves me right it was 1893 – that evolution could be seen as a manifestation of Divine Providence. The Church officially declared it was not contrary to the faith (although not necessarily accepting it) in 1953, decades before the issues with the school systems in the United States. If the Catholic Church is ambiguous at all in its position, it is because it is keeping to a broad position to prevent us from being attacked by Protestantism that may gain converts from us by claiming to be more “biblical”.
S
Shin
Guest
My father is in academia, and saw it – it was spot on. And since these were interviews with the actual academics, there is nothing to complain about.
Very entertaining, I must say.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Haha yeah ok, my dad ran 23 marathons guess that make a great runner!!!My father is in academia, and saw it – it was spot on. And since these were interviews with the actual academics, there is nothing to complain about.
Very entertaining, I must say.
D
DihydrogenOxide
Guest
I’m a biologist and I was spoon fed evolution garbage all through my schooling. That movie is quite good. If you want to know the full extent of the brainwashing done by the agnostics to push the -theory- of evolution, watch this.
I actually did formal studies on this topic for quite a while. There is not origin of life theory that makes any sense at all. The biochemistry doesn’t match up for spontaneous macroevolution or even microevolution.
Great movie all in all.
I actually did formal studies on this topic for quite a while. There is not origin of life theory that makes any sense at all. The biochemistry doesn’t match up for spontaneous macroevolution or even microevolution.
Great movie all in all.
R
RobbyS
Guest
If you lived in the US, you would know it is pretty accurate. university departments, in every field, are intolerant of unconventional views. The Darwinians are as intolerant of
other views as the Aristotleans were of Galileo. They never have really synthesised natural selection with genetics, at least much beyond that Julian Huxley proposed in the 1940s.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
I don’t think that’s what Ben Stein was trying to accomplish in the movie. I think Ben Stein in the movie was more interested in pointing to the difficulties of Darwinists using an “Evolution of the Gaps” to explain everything with absolute certainty, as opposed to Stein attempting to make a full-blown defense of Creationism. Plus I agree with you that the Creationist/Evolutionist dichotomy is more apt to describe the Literal Fundamentalist Protestant view versus Believers in Modern Evolutionary Theory.
I still recall first coming across my first criticism of evolutionary theory when reading David Berlinski in the pages of the American Jewish Congress’ Commentary journal in 1996 where he mentioned such things as: "Before the Cambrian era, a brief 600 million years ago, very little is inscribed in the fossil record; but then, signaled by what I imagine as a spectral puff of smoke and a deafening ta-da!, an astonishing number of novel biological structures come into creation, and they come into creation at once. Thereafter, the major transitional sequences are incomplete. Important inferences begin auspiciously, but then trail off, the ancestral connection between Eusthenopteron and Ichthyostega, for example–the great hinge between the fish and the amphibia–turning on the interpretation of small grooves within Eusthenopteron’s intercalary bones.Most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged. Where there should be evolution, there is stasis instead–the term is used by the paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in developing their theory of “punctuated equilibria”–with the fire alarms of change going off suddenly during a long night in which nothing happens.
The fundamental core of Darwinian doctrine, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has buoyantly affirmed, “is no longer in dispute among scientists.” Such is the party line, useful on those occasions when biologists must present a single face to their public. But it was to the dead that Darwin pointed for confirmation of his theory; the fact that paleontology does not entirely support his doctrine has been a secret of long standing among paleontologists. “The known fossil record,” Steven Stanley observes, “fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”
(end of quote)
discovery.org/a/130
“Darwin,” Richard Dawkins has remarked with evident gratitude, “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” This is what Stein and David Berlinski in the movie are arguing against IMHO: The unsubstantiated jump from some evidence for Evolutionary Theory to the non-sequitur that Atheism Rules.
Watch the movie. I found it entertaining. I don’t think Berkowitz or Stein for that matter are arguing for any literal creationist theory but are asking questions on some of the received wisdom of Evolutionary Theory. And why should one stop them? Every theory, including evolution, should face its objections and problems square-on and not resort to herd-mentality ad hominems in return.
And yes, I liked the movie. I was surprised
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Where did you get your degree, what feild do you work in?I’m a biologist and I was spoon fed evolution garbage all through my schooling. That movie is quite good. If you want to know the full extent of the brainwashing done by the agnostics to push the -theory- of evolution, watch this.
I actually did formal studies on this topic for quite a while. There is not origin of life theory that makes any sense at all. The biochemistry doesn’t match up for spontaneous macroevolution or even microevolution.
Great movie all in all.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
You seem to be confusing the acedemic arena and free speech.
R
reggieM
Guest
I thought it was excellent. I saw it in the theater and then purchased the DVD later.
As for the main point, that there is suppression of those who question evolution – there’s an indirect confirmation of that kind of attitude within science in the recent scandal with climate-science:
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment …
scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction …
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
It’s the same kind of dishonesty that Ben Stein exposed.
There’s another new movie out this month that I want to see also (not a feature film but an in depth documentary):
Darwin’s Dilemma
As for the main point, that there is suppression of those who question evolution – there’s an indirect confirmation of that kind of attitude within science in the recent scandal with climate-science:
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment …
scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction …
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
It’s the same kind of dishonesty that Ben Stein exposed.
There’s another new movie out this month that I want to see also (not a feature film but an in depth documentary):
Darwin’s Dilemma
S
Shin
Guest
Yes, that is precisely it, it is not just Creationism and Intelligent Design, this attitude pervades the educational establishments about a number of sacred cows of theirs.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
- Status