Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Expelled hysteria continues apace [Barf Alert]
OrlandoSentinel.com ^ | Apr 17, 2008 | Roger Moore

Posted on 04/17/2008 11:21:43 AM PDT by Aristotelian

As the onslaught of new emails-comments from believers/disbelievers pours in over this Ben Stein movie, Expelled, I am amused, appalled and mystified at the whole thing, and the posture of those are so adamantly in favor of adding "In the beginning..." to the nation's science curricula.

It's "not about religion," ID/Creationists/Monkey Trial adherents say. Yes, it is. Doesn't lying bother you? You want your religion imposed on America's kids in science classrooms. You want to "test" and "debunk" Evolution as a "belief system." And then you don't want YOUR belief system, which can't withstand tests under any of those criteria, given the same scrutiny.

Which chapter and verse does the Bible first use the word "hypocrite?"

What's the old saying, 'Never debate religion?' We should ALL remember that one in light of this movie, a cynical effort to let Stein prove that "there's a sucker born every minute" still applies.

But here goes...

People who have no trouble believing that billions of prayers are listened to and answered (or ignored "in mysterious ways") by a bearded guy in a bathrobe find the statistical probabilities of life emerging from chemistry and biology "far fetched." Thus, they cling to their worldview, untroubled by critical thoughts, assured they have "undermined" the godless Darwin because "the numbers can't be right."

People who can't get their heads around the numbers--the probabilities that science deals in --are still willing to be suckered in by this month's "Bible code."

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.orlandosentinel.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: antitheism; atheismandstate; benstein; creationism; expelled; whereisyourgodnow
I hope Ben Stein's documentary gives a lot more liberals like Moore, the Sentinel's film critic, fits.
1 posted on 04/17/2008 11:21:44 AM PDT by Aristotelian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

If God did not create the universe, then:

(A) God does not exist
(B) God exists but operates independent of our creation
(C) God evolved along with the space dust and this leaves open the possibility for other gods to also have evolved.

The mechanism of that “creation of life” is not the key component to believing in ANY idea of creationism. It hinges on whether you believe God played a role or not.

So those who deride all notions of creationism should really state what ideology they hold that denying any possibility of “creationism” does not deny the existence of god (forcing the “no god” god of atheism on the “deniers”).

Atheism is not the absence of religion. It is a faith too. Agnostics are the ones who say “we cannot know these things”.


2 posted on 04/17/2008 11:29:24 AM PDT by weegee (Religion is the opiate of the masses MARX1843 They get bitter, they cling to...religion OBAMA2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

Gee, an entire column built on the backs of straw men.


3 posted on 04/17/2008 11:30:04 AM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
Let's not fret over the long-term consequences of what this backward march to superstition will do to medicine, industry and our culture in general.

Did the film critic forget it was just a film?

Mr. Moore has issues.

4 posted on 04/17/2008 11:30:46 AM PDT by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Gee, an entire column built on the backs of straw men.

And he probably got paid for it, too!

I'm definitely in the wrong business!

5 posted on 04/17/2008 11:32:19 AM PDT by thulldud (Insanity: Electing John McCain again and expecting a different result.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

Wow! Roger Moore sounds like a really nasty person you’ld never want as a neighbor, that’s for sure.

But there is one kernel of truth in what he says vis a vis religion and science: one is based on faith (it’s true because I believe it), and the other is based on proof (it’s true only until an indisputable, provable fact replaces it). They are two entirely different practices that affect the way humans look at the spiritual world and the physical world. However Moore is not persuasive - he is so derogatory and vicious in an attempted takedown of pious believers that he turns everone off.

I love God and I love the practice of science but I’m damn careful not to confuse the two.


6 posted on 04/17/2008 11:32:46 AM PDT by SatinDoll (Desperately desiring a conservative government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Having ruffled feathers in the scientific community, the filmmakers behind a documentary questioning evolution theory have now incurred the wrath of one of the most powerful figures in the popular music business, Yoko Ono, and have generated a blogosphere mini-drama in the process.

The flap concerns the film’s use of the song “Imagine,” by the late John Lennon. Bloggers had accused Ms. Ono, Mr. Lennon’s wife, of selling out by licensing the song to the filmmakers. In fact, her lawyers say, she never granted permission for its use.

The movie is set to open Friday on 1,000 screens, according to a press release from Premise Media Corp., the film’s producer.

The dustup has already led to both a scathing article and a retraction on the site HuffingtonPost.com, where Wednesday afternoon writer James Boyce took back an article he had posted 48 hours earlier: “I apologize to Mrs. Lennon for my incorrect assumptions and statements in the article below which, of course, I retract completely.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


7 posted on 04/17/2008 11:34:46 AM PDT by Aristotelian ("Sock it to me!" Judy Carne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk

And from WorldNetDaily:

Scheduled for release in 1,000 theatres, “Expelled” will be hotter than “Farenheit 9/11,” which debuted on 868 screens, and much more convenient to see than “An Inconvenient Truth,” which I was surprised to find opened on only four screens nationwide despite all the hype, peaking at 587 before its appeal melted.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61134


8 posted on 04/17/2008 11:37:21 AM PDT by Aristotelian ("Sock it to me!" Judy Carne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk
Mr. Moore has issues.

He sucked as 007, and fails miserably as a columnist as well.

9 posted on 04/17/2008 11:37:52 AM PDT by ConservaTexan (February 6, 1911)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
...prayers are listened to and answered (or ignored "in mysterious ways") by a bearded guy in a bathrobe ...

Uhhh - no I don't think so.


10 posted on 04/17/2008 11:39:49 AM PDT by ladtx ( "Never miss a good chance to shut up." - - Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

11 posted on 04/17/2008 11:41:09 AM PDT by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

Sounds too good to miss!


12 posted on 04/17/2008 11:42:59 AM PDT by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ConservaTexan

“You want your religion imposed on America’s kids in science classrooms.”

Liberals always accuse conservatives of which they are most guilty.


13 posted on 04/17/2008 11:43:10 AM PDT by y6162
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

Let’s not forget Ann Coulter discussed evolution in depth in her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism


14 posted on 04/17/2008 11:46:44 AM PDT by y6162
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

An Inconvenient Truth will be shown on small screens in classrooms across the globe for a decade.

Expelled cannot be shown in schools.


15 posted on 04/17/2008 12:18:19 PM PDT by weegee (Religion is the opiate of the masses MARX1843 They get bitter, they cling to...religion OBAMA2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: y6162

And she didn’t get most, if any, of what she said about evolution correct.


16 posted on 04/17/2008 12:28:32 PM PDT by tokenatheist (Can I play with madness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tokenatheist

You must read about the long-necked giraffe.

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, 8 May 2007, Last Update 27 October 2007 with Appendix on Cameron & du Toit 2007: “Winning by a Neck…” pp .62-78)

The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.)What do we really know? (Part 2)

As for Part 1, see http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf

Summary

Introduction: the story which is commonly taught in high schools about the evolution of the longnecked giraffe by natural selection (feeding-competition-hypothesis) fails to explain, among other things, the size differences between males and females. Giraffe cows are up to 1.5 meters shorter than the giraffe bulls, not to mention the offspring. The wide migration range of the giraffe and the low heights of the most common plants in their diet likewise argue against the dominant selection hypothesis. Now to the main points: 1) The fossil „links“, which according to the theory should appear successively and replace each other, usually exist simultaneously for long periods of time. 2) Evolutionary derivations based on similarities rely on circular reasoning (to refer once more to Kuhn’s statement) 3) The giraffe has eight cervical vertebrae. Although the 8th vertebra displays almost all the characteristics of a neck vertebra, as an exception to the rule the first rib pair is attached there. 4) The origin of the long-necked giraffe by a macromutation is, due to the many synorganized structures, extremely improbable. 5) Sexual selection also lacks a mutational basis and, what is more, is frequently in conflict with natural selection („head clubbing“ is probably „a consequence of a long neck and not a cause“). 6) In contrast to the thus-far proposed naturalistic hypotheses, the intelligent design theory is basically testable. 7) The long-necked giraffes possibly all belong to the same basic type inasmuch as 8) a gradual evolution from the short-necked to the long-necked giraffe is ruled out by the duplication of a neck vertebra and the loss of a thoracic vertebra. 9) Chance mutations are principally not sufficient to explain the origin of the long-necked giraffe. 10) The intelligent design theory offers an adequate and satisfying solution to the problems and points to numerous „old“ and new research projects. 11) Mitchell and Skinner present a good analysis of the selectionist problem; however, their phylogenetic hypotheses presuppose the correctness of the synthetic evolutionary theory, and their claims of „intermediate forms“ are unproven.

http://www.weloennig.de/GiraffaSecondPartEnglish.pdf

Notes

The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.): What do we really know? (Parts 1, 2, Appendix)
By: Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: Internet Library

May 8, 2007 http://www.discovery.org/a/4072

About the Author: For the last 28 years Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig has been working on mutation genetics at the University of Bonn and the Max-Planck-Institute für Züchtungsforschung in Cologne (Bonn 7 years, Cologne 21 years). The articles listed represent his personal opinion on the topic of the evolution of the giraffe and do not reflect the opinion of his former or present employer. The author, not a fellow of the Discovery Institute, obtained his PhD in genetics at the University of Bonn, and is the author of numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers.

The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) – What Do We Really Know? (Part 1).

PDF http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf

The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.): What do we really know? (Part 2).

HTML http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:j63uiL2puikJ:www.weloennig.de/GiraffaSecondPartEnglish.pdf+long-necked+giraffes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

PDF http://www.weloennig.de/GiraffaSecondPartEnglish.pdf

Appendix Responding to Cameron & du Toit (2007): “Winning by a Neck: Tall Giraffes Avoid Competing With Shorter Browsers”. PDF http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe_Note_on_Cameron_and_duToit.pdf


17 posted on 04/17/2008 1:13:56 PM PDT by Aristotelian ("Sock it to me!" Judy Carne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

The leftists/atheists are going nuts.

It’s like Ben took a big ol’ stick and whacked their beehive.

If their position is so “right” and inviolable, what’s the problem with “allowing” a dissenting point of view.

You see this with libs, too. Can’t allow a dissenting point of view, because, yes, their position IS weak.


18 posted on 04/17/2008 1:18:41 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

Ben is getting some excellent coverage. Good for him.


19 posted on 04/17/2008 1:21:20 PM PDT by alarm rider ("Difficile est saturam non scibere" -- it's difficult not to write satire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

The scientific method says that theories must stand up to challenges. So what are the libs beefing about?


20 posted on 04/17/2008 1:27:52 PM PDT by Aristotelian ("Sock it to me!" Judy Carne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

Please explain ID Theory.


21 posted on 04/17/2008 1:30:50 PM PDT by tokenatheist (Can I play with madness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

Darwin himself said that his theory would be invalidated if there were any construct found that could not have developed through slight variations over time.

We all now that the fossil record shows a complete, unbroken line of slight changes from the single, self-generated cell to the human, and clearly explains the Cambrian explosion, and that there has never been a need by any evos to fake a fossil to support the theory.

That’s some funny sh!t right there.


22 posted on 04/17/2008 1:31:16 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tokenatheist

There is plenty on the web about ID theory. So I won’t repeat it here. But I do have two questions for you.

1. How does evolution explain the transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?

2. The Universe is governed by laws, such as the laws of physics. Where did the laws come from?


23 posted on 04/17/2008 1:46:29 PM PDT by Aristotelian ("Sock it to me!" Judy Carne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: alarm rider

It would be great if ID became a subject of debate among the presidential candidates. What would McPain say?


24 posted on 04/17/2008 1:48:27 PM PDT by Aristotelian ("Sock it to me!" Judy Carne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

If any of those laws of physics were off by even a small percentage, the universe, and especially life, would not exist.

ID theory is based on the premise that if you find information in empirical data, that information had to be organized intelligently.

You don’t find tablets in Egypt with information on them and immediately assume that the info “self organized” - unless, for some reason, the existance of ancient Egyptians threatens your worldview.


25 posted on 04/17/2008 1:49:39 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tokenatheist

Says who...


26 posted on 04/17/2008 2:27:14 PM PDT by y6162
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: y6162

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=MhH&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=ann+coulter+evolution&spell=1

That link will provide you with a large amount of information.


27 posted on 04/17/2008 3:11:39 PM PDT by tokenatheist (Can I play with madness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
I love God and I love the practice of science but I’m damn careful not to confuse the two.

Well-stated.

Unfortunately, too many conservatives haven't learned enough about science and religion to know the difference between the two.

28 posted on 04/17/2008 8:54:32 PM PDT by Rudder (Klinton-Kool-Aid FReepers prefer spectacle over victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tokenatheist

If there is so much evidence of evolution why does my college text book on evolution contain so much misinformation?

For example, it used the famous Peppered Moth experiment as proof of natural selection.

Was the Peppered Moth experiment good science in your opinion?

The evolution taught in high schools and colleges is full of proven distortions.


29 posted on 04/18/2008 3:57:49 PM PDT by Tramonto (Huckabee FairTax Huckabee FairTax Huckabee FairTax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html
Next.


30 posted on 04/18/2008 4:15:11 PM PDT by tokenatheist (Can I play with madness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tokenatheist

“Although the experiments were not perfect, they were not fatally flawed.”

Except the experiments didn’t provide an example of natural selection because they were botched.

What do you think of the circular logic homologies?

That ‘talkorigins’ site claims: “Homology is not defined as similarity due to common ancestry and then used as evidence for common ancestry.”

From my college text: “Structures that are shared by species on the basis of descent from a common ancestor are called homologies. Homologies alone are reliable indicators of evolutionary relationship.”

Its clear that my text is engaged in circular reasoning despite what the ‘talkorigins’ apologists say.


31 posted on 04/18/2008 4:51:05 PM PDT by Tramonto (Huckabee FairTax Huckabee FairTax Huckabee FairTax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson