Uhhh - no I don't think so.
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 ...
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”.
Gee, an entire column built on the backs of straw men.
Did the film critic forget it was just a film?
Mr. Moore has issues.
And he probably got paid for it, too!
I'm definitely in the wrong business!
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.
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
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
He sucked as 007, and fails miserably as a columnist as well.
Uhhh - no I don't think so.
Sounds too good to miss!
“You want your religion imposed on America’s kids in science classrooms.”
Liberals always accuse conservatives of which they are most guilty.
Let’s not forget Ann Coulter discussed evolution in depth in her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism
An Inconvenient Truth will be shown on small screens in classrooms across the globe for a decade.
Expelled cannot be shown in schools.
And she didn’t get most, if any, of what she said about evolution correct.
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).
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
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.
Ben is getting some excellent coverage. Good for him.
The scientific method says that theories must stand up to challenges. So what are the libs beefing about?
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.