or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie - Page 4

post #121 of 424
One of these days you all will learn that liberals can't ever be right in the eyes of conservatives and conservatives can't ever be right in the eyes of liberals.

And aside from that silly point which is sadly for the most part true the sad thing is that life is not about being "right" anyway. I would suggest that life is about learning to appreciate all the variety at hand. Be it political, culinary, cultural, matters of faith etc.
For example I don't hate this lady because she has a different faith vantage point than my own.
http://www.manjulaskitchen.com/about-manjula/


Only block heads hate variety.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #122 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Only block heads hate variety.

post #123 of 424
Thread Starter 
Fellowship:

Quote:
One of these days you all will learn that liberals can't ever be right in the eyes of conservatives and conservatives can't ever be right in the eyes of liberals.

That is far too simplistic.

Quote:
I would suggest that life is about learning to appreciate all the variety at hand. Be it political, culinary, cultural, matters of faith etc.

As is this.

Variety isn't always the issue. Sometimes there is no room for variety. We cannot have a variety of opinions on whether or not DDT is a good thing to use to fight mosquitoes in residential neighborhoods, we need a rational consensus. This is the case on matters of science.

Believing that god did everything is all well and good, but it has no place in science and you can't force it into science with appeals to politeness and multiculturalism.


Jubelum:

Quote:
All you have left is "prove it." I'll ask you as well... do you set the bar at the same "prove it" level with other groups who claim discrimination? Sexual harassment? Racism?

"Prove it" is hardly a fallback position. "Prove it" is everything.

Quote:
I already said that... and the subjective B+ stuck, despite the Faculty Dean's rebuke.

Was the Dean's rebuke related to the grade? Why did you deserve higher than a B+?

Quote:
Perhaps you have fundamental misunderstanding of who I am as a student. You guys keep throwing out "well, a student cannot disrupt..." - well, guess what... I never "took over" or disrupted, or derailed a class. I was there. You were not.

You were the one whining about not being treated kindly enough in class discussion. What would this actually look like?


ShawnJ:

I wouldn't concede that the guy is a bad professor. We have one extremely biased perspective.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #124 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

What's sad about it? .

It is hate. Penn and Teller are not just disagreeing with the Bible they are displaying a level of hate which is very dangerous to tolerate. Calling it the Damn Bible and kicking it around etc.

Civil and level headed people don't do this.

But I realize we live in a culture of "anything goes" "it's a free country"

I am glad we live in a free country but I wish some people would take it upon themselves to lift themselves above the fray and not ferment and go putrid in the muck of life.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #125 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I've already said that I had a 100% subjective grade affected. Three times now.

Now I'm really curious. What on earth is a 100% subjective grade? What was the assignment?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #126 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

So you had a bad professor.

*shrugs*

Exactly. Jub seems to be taking his personal experience, and deeming it a systemic problem. Although he's simultaneously backing away from that assertion, leaving himself with........ no argument at all as far as I can tell.

Although I do find it interesting that it took many, many posts, and many, many requests for specifics before we finally here claims of taking his case to a Dean.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #127 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Now I'm really curious. What on earth is a 100% subjective grade? What was the assignment?

30% of the grade is class participation. It was a seminar class.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #128 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Exactly. Jub seems to be taking his personal experience, and deeming it a systemic problem. Although he's simultaneously backing away from that assertion, leaving himself with........ no argument at all as far as I can tell.

.

You obviously have not been paying attention:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I am not claiming a 100%, across-the-board, systemic oppression of conservatives. I've never made that claim. I've said that there are times when certain professors can go out of bounds both in terms of their duties to free inquiry, and their duty to fairness in academic assessment.

Quote:
Although I do find it interesting that it took many, many posts, and many, many requests for specifics before we finally here claims of taking his case to a Dean

You don't agree with me, regardless of what I say or how I say it. You not processing fact does not make fact any less... well, factual.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #129 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

"Prove it" is hardly a fallback position. "Prove it" is everything.

I'll remember that in your future posts.


Quote:
Was the Dean's rebuke related to the grade? Why did you deserve higher than a B+?

Because I participated on par with other students, did not disrupt class, and met the participation guidelines set forth in the syllabus. And the dean agreed with me, but would not make the call to override the professor's right to his subjective assessment.

Quote:
You were the one whining about not being treated kindly enough in class discussion. What would this actually look like?

It looks like my proposition that students not be mocked and ridiculed personally for having different beliefs than the professor. How would you respond if you, on the spot, were asked to defend the Khmer Rouge or Stalin, because, well, you guys on the left are all the same?

Quote:
We have one extremely biased perspective.

On what basis are you claiming that? Prove it.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #130 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You obviously have not been paying attention:

No, I've been paying attention, watching you steadily backtrack from an untenable position.

The fact that you had a professor that was a dick that you think affected your grade makes you............. exactly like everyone else that's ever gone to college. Unless you can somehow make this universal experience for conservative and liberal students alike unique, you truly have no point other than "Professors shouldn't be dicks."

I'm pretty sure no-one disagrees with that.

When asked for proof and specifics, why did it take you so long to mention going to a Dean and having him agree with you? By far, this is your strongest point, and it's very strange indeed that it took you so long to bring it up.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #131 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

30% of the grade is class participation. It was a seminar class.

Well that's ridiculous. I have always thought that participation grades were all about "wiggle room" at the end of termand wiggle room goes both ways. But 30% is ridiculous.

I say again, you had a crap professor.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #132 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

No, I've been paying attention, watching you steadily backtrack from an untenable position.

Let's see if this shoe fits on the other foot.. show me some evidence that I have claimed a systemic problem.

Quote:
When asked for proof and specifics, why did it take you so long to mention going to a Dean and having him agree with you? By far, this is your strongest point, and it's very strange indeed that it took you so long to bring it up.

Alrighty cap'n... I'll make sure to make the entire opening and closing arguments all at one time. Is there a discovery period I should abide by? Maybe we can all go to having these discussions with one post per person... better make sure we get all the facts you might want right up front for you to assail earlier.

Like I said, no matter what I say or how I say it, you're going to have some little problem... so good day, sir.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #133 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

you had a crap professor.

I would have to agree with you.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #134 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Alrighty cap'n... I'll make sure to make the entire opening and closing arguments all at one time. Is there a discovery period I should abide by? Maybe we can all go to having these discussions with one post per person... better make sure we get all the facts you might want right up front for you to assail earlier.

Like I said, no matter what I say or how I say it, you're going to have some little problem... so good day, sir.

Hey, you said essentially the same thing in reply to post after post asking for evidence before the Dean shows up.

It's strange. It usually behooves a person to lead with their best argument. Not thrash around for a dozen posts or so before bringing it up. I doubt Mid would give you a B+ for that strategy!

I'd still like a response to this:
The fact that you had a professor that was a dick that you think affected your grade makes you............. exactly like everyone else that's ever gone to college. Unless you can somehow make this universal experience for conservative and liberal students alike unique, you truly have no point other than "Professors shouldn't be dicks."
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #135 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Let's see if this shoe fits on the other foot.. show me some evidence that I have claimed a systemic problem.

Well you said it was a problem in all but two universities. I'd say ([total number of universities] - 2) is saying it's a pretty damned systemic problem.

Anyway, what I find interesting is the relationship between what you're saying, Jubelum, and the widely-mocked-and-ridiculed idea of sexual harassment via a hostile work environment. Conservatives in general seem to make these vague allegations of prejudice against them from the news, from TV shows, from Hollywood, from universities, from all kinds of places. It seems to me that they're almost always much more vague than any hostile work environment claim, or claim of racial prejudice, that conservatives themselves usually reject as whining about things that exist only in the imagination.
post #136 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Let's see if this shoe fits on the other foot.. show me some evidence that I have claimed a systemic problem.

Hmmmm......

Quote:
... regardless of one's take on Expelled... it does raise some interesting questions. I have found that the academe has gone backward on academic freedom. That sacred right they fought so hard for in the late 60s is actively shunned because now they run things, and they are never wrong. Unless you are at Hillsdale or George Mason U, it can be very dangerous to indicate any conservative views on campus.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #137 of 424
"Professors shouldn't be dicks." There, you happy?

My entire point in this thread has been that people being silenced based on ideology in the classroom is not a good thing. I chose to point out that there ARE PROFESSORS that do not respect academic freedom when it comes to conservative opinions. Since none of you firing away in here are conservatives, I wonder how you are such authorities on the matter of the conservative experience in a liberal social science department. Yes, as I have stated, this is a rarity... for me less than 3% of professors I have had I would consider ideologues who did not abide by AAUP guidelines. Are there conservative professors that do the same thing? Surely.

But the point I made, before the personal attack hilarity, was that academia is not at its best when opinions are stifled. No student should get a better or worse grade, or learning experience, simply because of their world view in relationship to the professor's.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #138 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Hmmmm......

I speak from my experience. That's what I bring. And I've experienced the dangers. Personally. And there is a big difference between "can" and "is".
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #139 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

that conservatives themselves usually reject as whining about things that exist only in the imagination.

Well, I'm not one of those conservatives, am I?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #140 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

"Professors shouldn't be dicks." There, you happy?

Yes, quite

You've admitted that you really had no particular point, since all students are affected by dick professors, no matter their political persuasion. I wonder what percentage of dick-behavior by professors has nothing to do with politics?

Who here has personally attacked you anyways?
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #141 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

you really had no particular point, since all students are affected by dick professors, no matter their political persuasion.

No, I did not make the point that a few in here really wanted me to make.
My point is stated clearly above, and it has not changed.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #142 of 424
Thread Starter 
Fellowship:

Quote:
It is hate. It is hate. Penn and Teller are not just disagreeing with the Bible they are displaying a level of hate which is very dangerous to tolerate. Calling it the Damn Bible and kicking it around etc.

What is dangerous about it? Is the atheist horde going to pogrom the minority Christians?

Kicking around the Bible isn't dangerous, and it's not even hateful. One can loathe creationism but not creationists.


Jubelum:

Quote:
I'll remember that in your future posts.

Please do. Please stop me if I am guilty of casuistry or crowd-pleasing without sufficient reason for the generalizations.

Quote:
Because I participated on par with other students, did not disrupt class, and met the participation guidelines set forth in the syllabus. And the dean agreed with me, but would not make the call to override the professor's right to his subjective assessment.

You said class participation was 30%, not 100%. You received a B+ in the overall course, no a B+ in class participation, right?

Quote:
It looks like my proposition that students not be mocked and ridiculed personally for having different beliefs than the professor. How would you respond if you, on the spot, were asked to defend the Khmer Rouge or Stalin, because, well, you guys on the left are all the same?

I would (and did) say, "I am sorry, but that is a straw man argument and it is not my position at all."
I supported the war against the Taliban in 2002/2003 while I was a student. Do you really think I don't know what it's like to have professors call me out in class?

Quote:
On what basis are you claiming that? Prove it.

Luckily we have your posts to prove it, with you making sweeping generalizations based off of a single, questionable anecdote. That is more than enough to establish bias.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #143 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

My point is stated clearly above

Yes, addabox did a nice job of quoting it, didn't he?
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #144 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Well, I'm not one of those conservatives, am I?

So you support those "he told a Seinfeld joke and I felt harassed" complaints? If you do, you're unlike most liberals I know, who think they're mostly bogus and those women need to stop whining.
post #145 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I'll remember that in your future posts.



Because I participated on par with other students, did not disrupt class, and met the participation guidelines set forth in the syllabus. And the dean agreed with me, but would not make the call to override the professor's right to his subjective assessment.


It looks like my proposition that students not be mocked and ridiculed personally for having different beliefs than the professor. How would you respond if you, on the spot, were asked to defend the Khmer Rouge or Stalin, because, well, you guys on the left are all the same?


On what basis are you claiming that? Prove it.

... how about we get your professor's subjective POV? In all fairness, Do you have a problem with that? Or are we to accept that your subjective POV as the only POV and the correct POV. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #146 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... how about we get your professor's subjective POV? In all fairness, Do you have a problem with that? Or are we to accept that your subjective POV as the only POV and the correct POV. \

That's just dumb. Congrats on having what is possibly the biggest strawman in this entire thread. I'm not saying that a professor has no right his own POV, or even the right to share it, or that it is not necessarily the "correct" POV. And I know that my POV is not the only POV, and I encourage other POVs to enter the discussion, because that is where *learning* takes place.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #147 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

That's just dumb. Congrats on having what is possibly the biggest strawman in this entire thread. I'm not saying that a professor has no right his own POV, or even the right to share it, or that it is not necessarily the "correct" POV. And I know that my POV is not the only POV, and I encourage other POVs to enter the discussion, because that is where *learning* takes place.

You talk about academia as if you've been in that environment your entire life, go on to cite a single example, as some sort of proof or sweeping generalization on the changing nature of academia.

You took a course from a professor, so did that professor teach that one class and never teach again?

I remember a semester when I received four +'s on my grades, since the four +'s didn't affect my GPA one iota (e. g. if I had received the same letter grade but with four -'s), I wasn't a happy camper. Did I complain about any of those grades? No. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #148 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

go on to cite a single example

Flounder has closed the window on examples. You're late. And I spoke from personal experience... that some on this board just cannot accept.
My entire life? Where did you get that idea?

Quote:
You took a course from a professor, so did that professor teach that one class and never teach again?

What does that have to do with anything?

Quote:
Did I complain about any of those grades? No. \

What does that have to do with academic freedom and bias?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #149 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter

So then there should be thousands of conservatives across America flunking out of school. Where are they?

Non-sequitur.

This is not at all a non sequitur, because you're trying make a claim of a general effect, but only offering personal anecdote as evidence.

You say you can't offer better evidence for oppression of conservatives because this is all about subjective experiences and things that are not routinely recorded, not the kind of thing you can cite a journal reference for or post a link to as documented proof.

What you're missing, and this is midwinter's point, is that real, serious oppression would have real measurable effects. Unless you'd like us to believe that conservative students are so perfectly adaptable to oppression that their responses completely cancel out any measurable negative effects, some concrete effect of the claimed oppression would have to emerge: lower average grades for conservatives, higher drop-out rates, higher suicide rates, higher incidences of conservatives being victims of violent campus crime, etc. Something.

Without that kind of evidence, the rest of us have good reason to suspect that your sense of oppression, and the scale of it, is the result of a bias toward your own personal experiences and selective awareness and sensitivity to perceived wrongs against conservative students.

That said, my guess is that there is an element of truth in what you say. Since liberals professors tend to outnumber conservatives in academia, that's likely to have some sort of effect. But what matters here, when it comes to whether or not something like ID gets a "fair chance" in the academic world, is whether or not the oppression you speak of is both powerful and systematic.

If the bias is not so potent and pervasive as you'd have us believe, then the failings of ID are largely the fault of ID itself having little scientific or academic merit. The more powerful and effective a scientific idea is, the faster it can beat down the forces of entrenched acceptance of older views.

Creationism has been around a very long time, and its latest incarnation as ID began in the 1980s. ID has had nearly a generation to catch on and prove itself. A good scientific idea with good evidence to back it should show some signs of progress over that span of time. Trying to blame a lack of progress over a nearly generational span of time on unfair academic bias is, I have to say, a pretty lame case to be trying to make.

By contrast, when Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, although the principles of evolution contained therein faced strong opposition and created a great deal of controversy, evolution made swift progress towards academic and scientific acceptance. And that's even when the evidence for evolution was paltry compared to the mountains of data gathered since.

Why? Because evolution was and is good science, it's a powerful and effective theory for explaining what we see in the natural world. Then again, I suppose the creationist/ID explanation for the rapid rise and subsequent staying power of evolution would be something along the lines that evolution satisfied some supposed powerful hunger for an academic tool that could be used to "destroy God" -- how could it be anything else, since evolution is so "obviously" "junk science"?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #150 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post


Why? Because evolution was and is good science, it's a powerful and effective theory for explaining what we see in the natural world. Then again, I suppose the creationist/ID explanation for the rapid rise and subsequent staying power of evolution would be something along the lines that evolution satisfied some supposed powerful hunger for an academic tool that could be used to "destroy God" -- how could it be anything else, since evolution is so "obviously" "junk science"?

Good science?

Could you explain what you mean by declaring that "evolution" was and is good science.

I hardly see evolution as good let alone any kind of science.

It is yet another belief system sold as fact (in the name of science) with many "Sean Hannity" like cheer leaders who champion the rhetoric and propaganda.

Another Dogma if you will.

And might I add that it is rather naive to place scientists on some kind of a level of (not doing wrong for political and personal reasons). I would suggest that scientists twist science to fit their beliefs just as many TV preachers and regular pastors etc. twist their views based on their personal views. Oh and we might as well toss in professors in the mix. They would never present things in a slant based on their personal views either. Neither would politicians twist facts. Yeah sure..


To go on acting like this is not so is naive and silly.


Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #151 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

What does that have to do with academic freedom and bias?

I don't know, why don't you tell me?

We are talking about teachers at the university level, are we not? Their academic freedom? Their biases?

Not the student's academic freedom? Not the student's biases, are we not?

Also, you talk about the dean agreeing with you, if you had an objective case to make, I'm sure there were procedures that you could have pursued, why didn't you?

I somehow get the sense that you're dean was just doing a little "social grooming."
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #152 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline: View Post

This is not at all a non sequitur, because you're trying make a claim of a general effect, but only offering personal anecdote as evidence.

You say you can't offer better evidence for oppression of conservatives because this is all about subjective experiences and things that are not routinely recorded, not the kind of thing you can cite a journal reference for or post a link to as documented proof.

What you're missing, and this is midwinter's point, is that real, serious oppression would have real measurable effects. Unless you'd like us to believe that conservative students are so perfectly adaptable to oppression that their responses completely cancel out any measurable negative effects, some concrete effect of the claimed oppression would have to emerge: lower average grades for conservatives, higher drop-out rates, higher suicide rates, higher incidences of conservatives being victims of violent campus crime, etc. Something.

Without that kind of evidence, the rest of us have good reason to suspect that your sense of oppression, and the scale of it, is the result of a bias toward your own personal experiences and selective awareness and sensitivity to perceived wrongs against conservative students.

That said, my guess is that there is an element of truth in what you say. Since liberals professors tend to outnumber conservatives in academia, that's likely to have some sort of effect. But what matters here, when it comes to whether or not something like ID gets a "fair chance" in the academic world, is whether or not the oppression you speak of is both powerful and systematic.

If the bias is not so potent and pervasive as you'd have us believe, then the failings of ID are largely the fault of ID itself having little scientific or academic merit. The more powerful and effective a scientific idea is, the faster it can beat down the forces of entrenched acceptance of older views.

Creationism has been around a very long time, and its latest incarnation as ID began in the 1980s. ID has had nearly a generation to catch on and prove itself. A good scientific idea with good evidence to back it should show some signs of progress over that span of time. Trying to blame a lack of progress over a nearly generational span of time on unfair academic bias is, I have to say, a pretty lame case to be trying to make.

By contrast, when Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, although the principles of evolution contained therein faced strong opposition and created a great deal of controversy, evolution made swift progress towards academic and scientific acceptance. And that's even when the evidence for evolution was paltry compared to the mountains of data gathered since.

Why? Because evolution was and is good science, it's a powerful and effective theory for explaining what we see in the natural world. Then again, I suppose the creationist/ID explanation for the rapid rise and subsequent staying power of evolution would be something along the lines that evolution satisfied some supposed powerful hunger for an academic tool that could be used to "destroy God" -- how could it be anything else, since evolution is so "obviously" "junk science"?

How much of this excellent post Jubelum actually took in:

Quote:
evolution junk science
post #153 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

It is hate. Penn and Teller are not just disagreeing with the Bible they are displaying a level of hate which is very dangerous to tolerate. Calling it the Damn Bible and kicking it around etc.

Civil and level headed people don't do this.

They are entertainers...part of it is using a bit of shock and irreverence.

Their expert was certainly more respectful and much more credible than the bible expert. That's to be expected of course since literal interpretation of the Bible is difficult even for most believers.

That you reject the message because of the messenger ignores many of the points.
post #154 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

This is not at all a non sequitur, because you're trying make a claim of a general effect, but only offering personal anecdote as evidence.

You say you can't offer better evidence for oppression of conservatives because this is all about subjective experiences and things that are not routinely recorded, not the kind of thing you can cite a journal reference for or post a link to as documented proof.

What you're missing, and this is midwinter's point, is that real, serious oppression would have real measurable effects. Unless you'd like us to believe that conservative students are so perfectly adaptable to oppression that their responses completely cancel out any measurable negative effects, some concrete effect of the claimed oppression would have to emerge: lower average grades for conservatives, higher drop-out rates, higher suicide rates, higher incidences of conservatives being victims of violent campus crime, etc. Something.

Without that kind of evidence, the rest of us have good reason to suspect that your sense of oppression, and the scale of it, is the result of a bias toward your own personal experiences and selective awareness and sensitivity to perceived wrongs against conservative students.

That said, my guess is that there is an element of truth in what you say. Since liberals professors tend to outnumber conservatives in academia, that's likely to have some sort of effect. But what matters here, when it comes to whether or not something like ID gets a "fair chance" in the academic world, is whether or not the oppression you speak of is both powerful and systematic.

If the bias is not so potent and pervasive as you'd have us believe, then the failings of ID are largely the fault of ID itself having little scientific or academic merit. The more powerful and effective a scientific idea is, the faster it can beat down the forces of entrenched acceptance of older views.

Creationism has been around a very long time, and its latest incarnation as ID began in the 1980s. ID has had nearly a generation to catch on and prove itself. A good scientific idea with good evidence to back it should show some signs of progress over that span of time. Trying to blame a lack of progress over a nearly generational span of time on unfair academic bias is, I have to say, a pretty lame case to be trying to make.

By contrast, when Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, although the principles of evolution contained therein faced strong opposition and created a great deal of controversy, evolution made swift progress towards academic and scientific acceptance. And that's even when the evidence for evolution was paltry compared to the mountains of data gathered since.

Why? Because evolution was and is good science, it's a powerful and effective theory for explaining what we see in the natural world. Then again, I suppose the creationist/ID explanation for the rapid rise and subsequent staying power of evolution would be something along the lines that evolution satisfied some supposed powerful hunger for an academic tool that could be used to "destroy God" -- how could it be anything else, since evolution is so "obviously" "junk science"?

I did not make a claim of general effect, or that it was powerful and systemic... I stated facts from my own experience of being a conservative in a liberal social science department. I found that it can be a hazard to share your honest beliefs in a classroom with a professor that is willing to cross the line, and as Flounder would demand, "is a dick." And yes, it is difficult to quantify. I'd say that social science and ID are two very different disciplines with somewhat differing rules.

Though I do not agree completely with your entire post, it is very well thought-out and well reasoned.

I'm intrigued with Expelled!'s trailer about the cell and ID. I agree that if there is a basis, there will be progress.

I think one major issue is that, when it comes to the mystery of "how it all started," people from all stripes fill that vacuum with whatever they believe fits, based on their own reasoning. It's like the Big Bang... some people fill the "I cannot wrap my head around this" or "there is no logical explanation" with "GOD!"- and conversely, when science can explain the creation of life 100% and where the universe came from at its genesis, then there will be more progress.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #155 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

How much of this excellent post Jubelum actually took in:
Quote:
This is a non sequitur (hmm, this is a long post) because evolution is so "obviously" "junk science".

Odious assumptions again... I'm seeing a pattern here. Next time wait for me to respond, or not respond, before you snark. Thx.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #156 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Good science?

Could you explain what you mean by declaring that "evolution" was and is good science.

I hardly see evolution as good let alone any kind of science.

It is yet another belief system sold as fact (in the name of science) with many "Sean Hannity" like cheer leaders who champion the rhetoric and propaganda.

Another Dogma if you will.

And might I add that it is rather naive to place scientists on some kind of a level of (not doing wrong for political and personal reasons). I would suggest that scientists twist science to fit their beliefs just as many TV preachers and regular pastors etc. twist their views based on their personal views. Oh and we might as well toss in professors in the mix. They would never present things in a slant based on their personal views either. Neither would politicians twist facts. Yeah sure..


To go on acting like this is not so is naive and silly.


Fellows

Beliefs != Facts

Wedge strategy
Discovery Institute
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #157 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

They are entertainers...part of it is using a bit of shock and irreverence.

Their expert was certainly more respectful and much more credible than the bible expert. That's to be expected of course since literal interpretation of the Bible is difficult even for most believers.

That you reject the message because of the messenger ignores many of the points.

I just don't have a lot of respect for people who for a living live in sin city and put on shows of deception for the audience. Do I wish they knew God? You bet. But they believe they are smarter and can mock God.

It is a free country.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #158 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Good science?

Could you explain what you mean by declaring that "evolution" was and is good science.

I hardly see evolution as good let alone any kind of science.

Before I answer your question, which I gladly will, please answer the question inherent in my post: How do you explain the rapid and long sustained success of evolutionary theory in the academic and scientific world, starting when it entered the world at a time when it faced strong religious and cultural opposition, if it's not good science, if it's success isn't due to the true merit of the theory?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #159 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Good science?

Could you explain what you mean by declaring that "evolution" was and is good science.

I hardly see evolution as good let alone any kind of science.

It is yet another belief system sold as fact (in the name of science) with many "Sean Hannity" like cheer leaders who champion the rhetoric and propaganda.

Another Dogma if you will.

Up is down. Black is white.

It's just a theory, after all! Just like gravity.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #160 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

How much of this excellent post Jubelum actually took in:

If you believe that you are fooling yourself Hassan.

You are in effect saying Jub has no intellect nor capacity to appreciate a well written reply?

Bull Dirt.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie