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 6

post #201 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

If that person were part of a large and vocal movement that kept trying over and over to push for "equal time" for flat earth-ism or green sky-ism in public schools, occasionally successfully until courts have to step in and straighten their mess out, yes.

Would you accuse those who would fight against a flat earth curriculum of being "afraid" of what the flat earthers have to say? Of being unfairly prejudiced against an "alternative" view? Of being guilty of dark, ulterior motives for their "round earth agenda"?

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. I don't have a problem with science classes teaching the theory of evolution... as an undergrad, I remember studying the sociological effects of the Scopes Trial... and overall, Scopes was a huge waste of time- the whole thing. I think teaching one to the complete exclusion of the other is folly.

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." That's the way I would handle it if I were the Master of the Chalk.

I would not use "afraid" to describe either party. I'd say "adamant." Deep down, though, shetline, I know you are part of the Dark Cult of the Round Earth People.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #202 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I guess you have not been to Waterloo, Iowa.



But you're still wrong about everything.
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 #203 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post



But you're still wrong about everything.

Well... I'll call that a draw.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #204 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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. I don't have a problem with science classes teaching the theory of evolution... as an undergrad, I remember studying the sociological effects of the Scopes Trial... and overall, Scopes was a huge waste of time- the whole thing. I think teaching one to the complete exclusion of the other is folly.

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." That's the way I would handle it if I were the Master of the Chalk.

I would not use "afraid" to describe either party. I'd say "adamant." Deep down, though, shetline, I know you are part of the Dark Cult of the Round Earth People.

No one is "teaching one to the complete exclusion of the other". Name one institution that doesn't have a creationism course in the theology department, where it belongs.

You can take biological and anthropological sciences and natural history courses that teach about evolution. You can take religious courses that teach about creationism. Take the fucking class if that's what you want to learn about.

There is plenty of opportunity within a science course to argue against evolution using scientific method and evidence, as long as you have some to use as an argument. But if you want to argue against evolution using the bible and faith, you need to do it in theological classes because such arguments have ZERO science and therefore don't belong in the science classroom. Using the Bible to "prove" that Man was created in One Day™ would be like using Picasso to prove that people once had three eyes in Biology class.
post #205 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I guess you have not been to Waterloo, Iowa.

BUT I'VE BEEN TO OOOOOOOK-LA-HOMMMMMMMMM-AAAAAAAAA
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 #206 of 424
Quote:
Take the fucking class if that's what you want to learn about.

They offer classes in that now?

College is much better than when I went.
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 #207 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

to prove that people once had three eyes

Once? ... Apparently you've never been to West Virginia.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #208 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

They offer classes in that now?

College is much better than when I went.

You have no idea.
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 #209 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

They offer classes in that now?

College is much better than when I went.

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #210 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

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.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #211 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

They offer classes in that now?

College is much better than when I went.

Yeah and I'm the founding dean, brothaaah.
post #212 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah and I'm the founding dean, brothaaah.

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #213 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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...
post #214 of 424
Thread Starter 
Jubelum:

Quote:
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.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #215 of 424
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.
post #216 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by soulcrusher View Post

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?
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 #217 of 424
Thread Starter 
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.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #218 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

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?
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 #219 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

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.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #220 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.
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 #221 of 424
Thread Starter 
Jubelum:

Quote:
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".
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #222 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.
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 #223 of 424
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>
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #224 of 424
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.
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 #225 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.
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 #226 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #227 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.
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 #228 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Damn you and your intricate maths.

I can just see Dogbert saying that...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #229 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.
post #230 of 424
Was Darwin responsible for the mass deaths and massacres that happened before his birth too?
post #231 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

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.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #232 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

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

That's been asked already.

Quote:
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.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #233 of 424
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.
post #234 of 424
Thread Starter 
Jubelum:

Quote:
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.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #235 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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?
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 #236 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

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)
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #237 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Right, and your outlook is perfectly reasonable here.

Why, thank you, groverat.

Quote:
I think we shouldn't be overprotective.

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #238 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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?
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 #239 of 424
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".
post #240 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"guns and bullets kill people".

You little devil.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
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