Posted on 04/01/2008 12:21:24 PM PDT by Zender500
That's like saying Michael Moore takes on the reclusive heath care industry in "Sicko".
“Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? Bueller? Bueller? Burller?”
“Anyone seen the movie?”
I’ll wait for the DVD.
That's too funny.
I actually may make the effort to go see this movie. What a RARE treat!!!
To take the documentary format and hoist these folks on their own petard with their favorite propaganda format!! With their own words, no less!
Ben Stein bump!
Exactly
Who really is?
Bump to remind myself to go see it! Thanks for the heads up!
I’d take Ben Stein more seriously if he would send a contribution to Norm Coleman for US Senate - Minnesota. Instead he donated to Al Franken, just because Al is a show business friend.
Al Franken is the last person we Minnesotans want or need foisted upon us as our US Senator.
And yet Roger Moore, at least, is a big fan of Michael Moore.... Go figure.
Am I "qualified" to debate global warming?
Didn't you hear Al Gore, "the debate is over."
No-one. There is no debate.
Most science theories are subject to falsification, and have scientists using experiments designed to disprove them.
But not "special" science theories. These darlings are really just philosophical views that envy the credibility of science theories, and are thus willingly confused with the later.
Neither ID nor Darwin's theory of Common Origin are falsifiable by us mortals. Neither are scientific theories. Neither should be promoted as such.
Evidence should be examined, reason should be applied, and the subject should be debated objectively, with neither getting the magical lab coat of "science". If sufficient logic and evidence supports Darwin's position, then Darwin's position should not need to have the exalted "science" label in order to prevail.
Finally I make a preemptive plea not to repeat the tired old fallacy of siting what "THE" evidence "SAYS". There is no "THE" evidence. And if there was a "THE" evidence, it is not something that talks. Where some allowance for inexact speech is reasonable in such discussions. This kind of statement is unforgivably sloppy, and I can't imagine any thinking person justifying this kind of statement as part of critical analysis.
bttt
The answer to that question is an unambiguous yes.
Or was it Hitler's Christianity?
It would start with an understanding of the definition of evolution.
It does not refer to the origin of life.
I am offended when someone asserts that those uses are in any way relevant to the question of whether or not natural selection is a scientifically valid theory.
Evolution is way more than an academic theory. It is a huge money-maker. Evolutionists have a huge enconomic stake in their theory, and will do just about anything to protect that money flow.
Evolution-related research rakes in billions of dollars every year from government and private sources. Those sources WANT evolution to be proven for a variety of personal desires... not reasons... just desires, some of those also being money-motivated.
If Intelligent Design was accepted by the academic world, all that money would stop flowing. All that research would be replaced with a simple statement: “Superior intelligence created it.”
As long as money rules this world, people are going to believe what makes money, period, end of story. Effort’s like Ben Stien’s “Expelled” will have no measurable impact.
The quoted statement above reveals another motivation behind evolution. Academia cannot bear the thought that they might not be the most superior intelligence around.
Academia is all about arrogance. Admitting there might be an intelligence superior to theirs is unthinkable. Admitting they might be wrong is unthinkable. Admitting they have been wrong for 150+ years is unthinkable.
Truth has no place in academia. Academia doesn’t care about truth, facts, and demonstrable reproducible science.
It’s all about arrogance with them. Their theories are right simply because THEY say those theories are right. They don’t need demonstrable reproducible scientific proof. Their collective belief in those theories should be enough for anyone, since they are the highest intelligence... in their minds.
“How DARE you question what WE say?!?!?!” is the only argument they can bring to the table.
That is why they won’t come to the table.
Pretty much sums up the entirety of intelligent design.
"Excuse me Dr. Smith, but this bacterial infection seems oddly resistant to previously effective drugs, have you noticed?"
"Must be a new bacterial strain."
"Where do you suppose it came from?"
"A superior intelligence created it."
"Oh. Ok. Wanna' play some golf?"
Since you've seen the movie, maybe you can answer the $64 dollar question -- who was "Expelled"?
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.