On Nov 17, 2008, at 11:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -----Original message----- > From: Brian Lawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:21:05 -0800 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Stratalist-ot] Re: "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" > >> >> On Nov 17, 2008, at 11:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> From: Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> I love the whole "challenge" aspect to this movie. The trailer >>>> looked like it was for a new X-Files movie. ok, it's in the Q >>>> with a "long wait" message attached. >>>> From the articles posted, I think I already know what I'm getting >>>> into, tho. >>>> Kinda sounds like a tit for tat response to Religulous. >>> >>> Good to hear you're going to form your own opinion of the movie >>> rather than rely on someone else's. >>> >>> My brother is a tenured researcher/professor at Kansas State. He's >>> an extremely inquisitve, open-minded and skeptical individual, >>> except when it comes to anything ID. He's scared shitless any >>> discussion of the topic -- even with family members -- will be >>> detrimental to his career. >>> >>> Tenured professors and researches shouldn't be so constrained. >>> That is one of the points Ben Stein tried to hammer home, and it >>> is one reason I think he could make a similar documentary about >>> global warming. >> >> Did you read the link Tenebre gave us on the film and its claims of >> persecution of scientists? They are all bunk. Check the section >> 'The "Expelled"' and the links to the researchers the movie >> highlights for the truth about their so called persecution for >> their beliefs. >> >> <http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth> > > I knew when I started this thread that the anti-creationists would > howl loudly, and offer irrelevant counterpoints. When they get to > define ID, they get to knock it around any way they want. > > I have no doubt that there are well-organized groups that want to > discredit the movie or any aspect of ID. I have no doubts there are > websites eager to destroy Ben Stein for asking questions that > Darwinists cant' answer. I didn't need a link from TEN, and I > wouldn't follow it anyway. His attempts to "prove" there is no God > is just a futile as anyone's attempts to "prove" that God exists. > > But there are interesting questions that Darwinism cannot and does > not answer. ID doesn't either, but a least they're not pretending > they have all the answers like some microbiologists would have you > believe. > > Ben Stein didn't just interview those interested in ID. He also > interviewed those adamantly opposed to ID. You may want to see what > they have to say, too. I found many of them to be condescending and > arrogant. I was also intrigued by Richard Dawkins' speculation about > how life formed. Oddly enough, it could easily fall into the > definition of ID. > > ID isn't necessarily creationism, although I will concede that some > fundamentalists abuse it as an attempt to prove the existence of > God, or that evolution didn't occur. "Expelled" isn't about those > nutcases. It's more about scientists clinging to an inadequate > theory (Darwinism), and just how nasty they can get in defending > that theory.
Read the counter arguments to the movie, don't disregard the points others are offering just because you dislike the person providing the links. How can you have an open minded discussion when you won't entertain the opposition's arguments? The people who oppose creationism were tricked into being in the movie by being told it was about something else then their statements were used out of context and superimposed with inflammatory images like those of Nazis which have absolutely nothing to do with their arguments. I'm in agreement with Michael about this - evolution and science's attempts to explain how we came to be are not in direct opposition to the Bible's claim that we were created by a supreme being. The Bible does not offer the mechanism for that creation (and neither does Darwin - it wasn't his attempt to do so either only to describe the mechanism which took place after the creation of life which lead to us) - science is merely attempting to provide that explanation. What I am in disagreement with is the idea that a religious, non- scientific belief should be promoted as legitimate science. It offers no testable theories and relies entirely upon belief and the ignoring of scientific fact to further their position. If people want their children to learn creationism send them to Sunday School and have it incorporated into that class's curriculum. Don't try to pass it off as real science then cry foul when it doesn't stand up to scientific rigors and accepted practices. -- Brian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
