Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie

[Jubelum]

Originally Posted by addabox

They offer classes in that now?

College is much better than when I went.

[Jubelum]

Originally Posted by midwinter

BUT I'VE BEEN TO OOOOOOOK-LA-HOMMMMMMMMM-AAAAAAAAA

no, that would be confusing a political party with a tractor, not a lawn mower. Close, though...
I guess Oklahoma is OK.

[tonton]

Originally Posted by addabox

They offer classes in that now?

College is much better than when I went.

Yeah and I'm the founding dean, brothaaah.

[Jubelum]

Originally Posted by tonton

Yeah and I'm the founding dean, brothaaah.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Is there a problem with teaching kids "here is what scientists believe, based on the fossil record and years of study... and many religions also have their own views about where humans came from, which you are welcome to study as soon as we get done with what you need to understand about what the scientific method has revealed."

When I've tried to look into what religions say, the odd thing is that none that I've seen officially teach that evolution is false. The mainline protestant churches and Catholics all teach that evolution is just fine and not inconsistent with their religion. The "independents" (i.e., evangelical churches) probably don't say that, but they tend not to have official doctrine stored away in some website either.

It's very interesting to me that churches don't take positions against evolution, but so many religious people believe they do.

There are conservative groups that support and fund these creation museums and these movies, but they're never actual churches or church denominations, from what I can tell. They're conservative political people, and there's no doubt they're religious, but the religions themselves don't seem to be the ones doing this.

I don't quite get why it's something political-types would be interested in, but that's what it seems like to me...

[groverat]

Jubelum:

I don't see what is wrong with teaching kids with the truth... the truth is, when they leave the classroom, they are going to encounter people with both evolution and creation as their position. I think the topic of cultural literacy is relevant here.

You're right, but it is not relevant in a science classroom, because science class isn't about cultural literacy, it's about science.

Non-science does not belong in science classrooms.

[soulcrusher]

Interestingly enough, in the philosophy class I am taking right now on Hume the professor said the other day that Hume's refutation of the design argument is correct - i.e. that the refutation is logically sound and that it should suffice to convince any man of reason that the complexity of the world in no way implies a designer.

Isn't that outrageous? A PROFESSOR TOLD THEIR STUDENTS AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE DESIGN ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY FLAWED!! OMFG>>>

No! What would be outrageous is if the Professor had, out of "tolerance", kept the truth away from the students. It is the Professor's responsibility to teach, it is his fucking job.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by soulcrusher

Interestingly enough, in the philosophy class I am taking right now on Hume the professor said the other day that Hume's refutation of the design argument is correct - i.e. that the refutation is logically sound and that it should suffice to convince any man of reason that the complexity of the world in no way implies a designer.

Isn't that outrageous? A PROFESSOR TOLD THEIR STUDENTS AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE DESIGN ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY FLAWED!! OMFG>>>

No! What would be outrageous is if the Professor had, out of "tolerance", kept the truth away from the students. It is the Professor's responsibility to teach, it is his fucking job.

Is that the same Hume argument (the one about the refutation of miracles) where Hume ends by saying that logic is insufficient to explain God?

[groverat]

Crushing dishonesty from Ben Stein on FOXNews.

He says that the idea to exterminate entire races came from Darwinism; that Darwinistic thinking is the source of thinking the extermination of an entire race is a good thing.

The mythical books of the Bible were written millennia before Darwin sailed the ocean blue, and the absolute slaughter of the people in the promised land at the edge of the children of Israel's sword is a brutal and chilling tale of eager genocide.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by groverat

Crushing dishonesty from Ben Stein on FOXNews.

He says that the idea to exterminate entire races came from Darwinism; that Darwinistic thinking is the source of thinking the extermination of an entire race is a good thing.

The mythical books of the Bible were written millennia before Darwin sailed the ocean blue, and the absolute slaughter of the people in the promised land at the edge of the children of Israel's sword is a brutal and chilling tale of eager genocide.

Well, nobody knows who Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton are, so he had to kind of aim at a big target, didn't he?

[Jubelum]

Originally Posted by groverat

Darwinistic thinking is the source of thinking the extermination of an entire race is a good thing.

Sorta...

Darwinism became Social Darwinism, which became eugenics, which (in a climate of racism) became, among other things, phrenology and justification for extermination for... wait for it... wait for it... "the common good."

Convoluted? Yes. Is Darwin the source?- sorta, but a whole lotta people had to get their spin in before we get to the Holocaust.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Sorta...

Darwinism became Social Darwinism, which became eugenics, which (in a climate of racism) became, among other things, phrenology and justification for extermination for... wait for it... wait for it... "the common good."

Convoluted? Yes. Is Darwin the source?- sorta, but a whole lotta people had to get their spin in before we get to the Holocaust.

That's not the point. Stein is implying that genocide derives from Darwinism through social Darwinism>eugenics. That is simply not the case.

[groverat]

Jubelum:

Darwinism became Social Darwinism, which became eugenics, which (in a climate of racism) became, among other things, phrenology and justification for extermination for... wait for it... wait for it... "the common good."

Genocide for the good of the world existed long before any concepts of natural selection or the mistaken "survival of the fittest".

[addabox]

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Sorta...

Darwinism became Social Darwinism, which became eugenics, which (in a climate of racism) became, among other things, phrenology and justification for extermination for... wait for it... wait for it... "the common good."

Convoluted? Yes. Is Darwin the source?- sorta, but a whole lotta people had to get their spin in before we get to the Holocaust.

Sure. And Christianity burns women, tortures non-believers, and slaughter millions. With somewhat less spinning, so those things were done explicity under the banner of Christ.

[Jubelum]

My point is that Darwin's theories were applied by Spencer to mankind, and thus became ammo for people interested in eugenics and genocide. Darwin did not invent, cause, or explain genocide. But one application of his theories gave some evil people something on which to couch their argument for eugenics and genocide.

Its an easy sale to the Cognitive Miser... species advance when the unfit fail... we want humankind to advance... so let's get rid of the unfit.

<checks shape of own head>

[addabox]

I would also point out, if anyone is still curious about why, if ID is intellectually bankrupt it is still necessary to argue forcefully against it, to note that Hannity opens the linked to segment by talking about science's "obsession" with evolution and determination to suppress ID.

That's on a national news network, highly rated "news" show. For anyone who isn't in the thrall of faith based "science", that's about like seeing Brit Hume doing a story on "the controversial theory of gravity" and turning to a guest to discuss why science is so obsessed with stamping out the notion of tiny, grasping homunculi accounting for the mysterious attraction at a distance.

New dark ages, in other words. Worth fighting against, I would think.

[addabox]

Originally Posted by Jubelum

My point is that Darwin's theories were applied by Spencer to mankind, and thus became ammo for people interested in eugenics and genocide. Darwin did not invent, cause, or explain genocide. But one application of his theories gave some evil people something on which to couch their argument for eugenics and genocide.

Its an easy sale to the Cognitive Miser... species advance when the unfit fail... we want humankind to advance... so let's get rid of the unfit.

<checks shape of own head>

Right. And Christianity advanced the idea of a single means of "salvation", and the idea that stamping out redoubts of non-belief furthered God's will for mankind and the dominion of Christ.

Unfortunately, I can't even argue for the evil at one remove, since the authorization was explicit.

[Jubelum]

Originally Posted by addabox

Unfortunately, I can't even argue for the evil at one remove, since the authorization was explicit.

Well, explicit from the Church, not from Christ... so half removed. And since I'm a protestant, I'm half removed again. That's two halves.. or once removed. That means I can almost wash my hands of it.

[addabox]

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Well, explicit from the Church, not from Christ... so half removed. And since I'm a protestant, I'm half removed again. That's two halves.. or once removed. That means I can almost wash my hands of it.

Damn you and your intricate maths.

[Jubelum]

Originally Posted by addabox

Damn you and your intricate maths.

I can just see Dogbert saying that...

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Jubelum

My point is that Darwin's theories were applied by Spencer to mankind, and thus became ammo for people interested in eugenics and genocide. Darwin did not invent, cause, or explain genocide. But one application of his theories gave some evil people something on which to couch their argument for eugenics and genocide.

By this logic, Kevin Bacon is as responsible for the Holocaust as anyone else.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Was Darwin responsible for the mass deaths and massacres that happened before his birth too?

[Jubelum]

Originally Posted by BRussell

By this logic, Kevin Bacon is as responsible for the Holocaust as anyone else.

That would be Six Million Degrees to Kevin Bacon, right?

I've known that Kevin has had these evil powers since the first time I saw Tremors.

[Jubelum]

Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

Was Darwin responsible for the mass deaths and massacres that happened before his birth too?

That's been asked already.

Darwin did not invent, cause, or explain genocide. But one application of his theories gave some evil people something on which to couch their argument for eugenics and genocide.

[BRussell]

I wonder which has led to more deaths, applications of Jesus's theories by evil people, or applications of Darwin's? I mean, if that's the game we're going to play - it's apparently one of the central games of this movie - it only seems fair to make the comparison.

[groverat]

Jubelum:

My point is that Darwin's theories were applied by Spencer to mankind, and thus became ammo for people interested in eugenics and genocide. Darwin did not invent, cause, or explain genocide. But one application of his theories gave some evil people something on which to couch their argument for eugenics and genocide.

Right, and your outlook is perfectly reasonable here. I think we shouldn't be overprotective.

However, when someone argues that the Holocaust was essentially Darwin's fault you cannot say that person is "sorta" right. Stein isn't correct at all. The connection between Hitler and Darwin is non-existent. And this isn't reflexive defensiveness.

Even if we operate under the idea of social Darwinism, we must set up criteria for undesirable traits. It is this process of selection that makes it clear that the motivations behind the Holocaust were not derived from Darwinistic thinking, they were derived from centuries of socially-cultivated racism against Jews. It is only after it is decided that the Jews need to be done away with that even the most twisted ideas of social Darwinism can take hold.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Darwin did not invent, cause, or explain genocide. But one application of his theories gave some evil people something on which to couch their argument for eugenics and genocide.

Then why is Darwin any more special than Einstein or Feynman, whose theories led to the atom bomb? Or the Bible, which was used to defend slavery? Or Nobel, who invented dynamite?

Hell, even Oppenheimer said "now I am become Death [Shiva], the destroyer of worlds," and he knew what would come from his theories. Is Darwin magically responsible for how his theories get applied?

[Jubelum]

Originally Posted by midwinter

Then why is Darwin any more special than Einstein or Feynman, whose theories led to the atom bomb? Or the Bible, which was used to defend slavery? Or Nobel, who invented dynamite?

Hell, even Oppenheimer said "now I am become Death [Shiva], the destroyer of worlds," and he knew what would come from his theories. Is Darwin magically responsible for how his theories get applied?

Wow. That's a somewhat aggressive defense... for nothing.

Of course he's not responsible for what other people do with his findings and theory. They are.
Can you imagine the chilling effect that could have on science, or any field of study?

(Maybe I just need to give some of you what you want, and claim that Darwin is directly responsible for the Holocaust, eugenics, "the abortion Holocaust", the Kennedy Assassination, the price of gas, and the script for Ishtar)

[Jubelum]

Originally Posted by groverat

Right, and your outlook is perfectly reasonable here.

Why, thank you, groverat.

I think we shouldn't be overprotective.

I think it is too late for a few of my friends around here...

However, when someone argues that the Holocaust was essentially Darwin's fault you cannot say that person is "sorta" right. Stein isn't correct at all.

Correct.

The connection between Hitler and Darwin is non-existent. And this isn't reflexive defensiveness.

It's not non-existent. Hitler applied Darwins theories, blended with lot of other things, as just one basis for doing some really bad shit. There is no way that anyone could make a sane case that would attribute the Holocaust to Chuck Darwin. Dig it?

Even if we operate under the idea of social Darwinism, we must set up criteria for undesirable traits. It is this process of selection that makes it clear that the motivations behind the Holocaust were not derived from Darwinistic thinking, they were derived from centuries of socially-cultivated racism against Jews. It is only after it is decided that the Jews need to be done away with that even the most twisted ideas of social Darwinism can take hold.

Correct. The evil lies in the ones that applied, or shall we say, "twisted" the works of Darwin to fit their already sick intent.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Wow. That's a somewhat aggressive defense... for nothing.

Of course he's not responsible for what other people do with his findings and theory. They are.
Can you imagine the chilling effect that could have on science, or any field of study?

(Maybe I just need to give some of you what you want, and claim that Darwin is directly responsible for the Holocaust, eugenics, "the abortion Holocaust", the Kennedy Assassination, the price of gas, and the script for Ishtar)

It's hardly an aggressive defense at all. I'm merely pointing out the ridiculousness of Stein's argument. He's either suggesting that Darwin's principles are in some way evil or he's pointing out something that is so obvious that it's not worth pointing out.

And so now I ask: why is this thread not locked?

[tonton]

I think it's time to lock. Topic has changed. There is nothing intelligent being presented. Especially some stupid new thing to bame Darwinism for that is just moronic.

"Darwinism enabled the holoaust" is way (@$%*&^) less honest than saying "guns and bullets kill people".

[Jubelum]

Originally Posted by tonton

"guns and bullets kill people".

You little devil.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally Posted by Jubelum

It's not non-existent. Hitler applied Darwins theories, blended with lot of other things, as just one basis for doing some really bad shit. There is no way that anyone could make a sane case that would attribute the Holocaust to Chuck Darwin. Dig it?

I'm sorry... this is a common line that isn't the full truth of the story. Darwin's broader language was combined with the already extant view that certain tribes of people were superior to others. This truly has nothing to do with Darwinism at all. The concept of cleansing one's bloodline goes back to before the recording of time...

[franksargent]

Did Judainsanity make God in human's own image?

Did Islaminsanity make God in human's own image?

Did humans practice breeding and domestication of animal and plant species for tens of thousands of years?

Do you take offense in my spelling of certain belief systems?

Artificial selection

Charles Darwin originally coined the term as an illustration of his proposed wider process of natural selection. He noted that many domesticated animals and plants had special properties that were developed by intentionally encouraging the breeding potential of individuals who both possessed desirable characteristics, and discouraging the breeding of individuals who had less desirable characteristics.

Racial hygiene

Racial hygienists played key roles in the Holocaust, the Nazi effort to cleanse Europe of Jews, Communists, Gypsies, homosexuals, political dissidents, the mentally retarded and insane.

Did ID precede or follow Darwin's theory of evolution? Remember Darwin's theory of evolution wasn't created in a vacuum.

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs

Drawing on higher criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler advocated "Positive Christianity", traditional Christianity[citation needed] purged of everything that he found objectionable. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself,[23] but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.
.
.
.
As Protestantism was more open to reinterpretations, especially Positive Christianity, and a non-traditional re-reading of sacred scripture, and because some of its liberal branches had similar views, Hitler, still a nominal Roman Catholic, demonstrated a preference for Protestantism over Catholicism.
.
.
.
Hitler did not believe in a "remote, rationalist divinity" but in an "active deity,"[43] which he frequently referred to as "Creator" or "Providence". In Hitler's belief God created a world in which different races fought each other for survival as depicted by Arthur de Gobineau.

Am I missing something here, I don't see Darwin's theory of evolution (his name or the theory) anywhere in the above link?

Now go back to the Faux Noise clip and the token stereotyped "liberal" Alen Colmes opening statement.

Three words come to mind with respect to AC. Weak. Lame. Planted.

Ouch! The Daily Show's Eviscerating "Documentary" About Fox News

The above link glaringly shows that Faux Noise is unfair and unbalanced.

The facts speak for themselves, that ID is a creation of humans, just as God is a creation of humans, a creation in humankind's own image.

In fact, the rightful place of ID in fermenting Hitler's mindset is part and parcel with the Holocaust.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

I'm sorry... this is a common line that isn't the full truth of the story. Darwin's broader language was combined with the already extant view that certain tribes of people were superior to others. This truly has nothing to do with Darwinism at all. The concept of cleansing one's bloodline goes back to before the recording of time...

And even more Darwin is also encoding an 19th century obsession with "progress" in a culture that had already been obsessed with the capitalist notion of competition leading to extinction, and so by focusing on the species rather than the type, Darwin makes these notions of species' extinctions less personal and easier to swallow.

[dmz]

Haven't read the thread, but Berlinski specifically states in the movie -- semidirect quote -- 'okay let's be plain, Darwinism didn't cause the Nazis.' He then went on to state that Darwinism was only one necessary condition.

[Flounder]

Originally Posted by dmz

He then went on to state that Darwinism was only one necessary condition.

I wouldn't agree with that either.

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by dmz

Haven't read the thread, but Berlinski specifically states in the movie -- semidirect quote -- 'okay let's be plain, Darwinism didn't cause the Nazis.' He then went on to state that Darwinism was only one necessary condition.

Just curious.

[dmz]

Originally Posted by franksargent

Just curious.

Yes.

[more filler text so this will post]

[dmz]

Originally Posted by Flounder

I wouldn't agree with that either.

Sure it's open to debate, but it's not some far-out fantasy.