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 7

post #241 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #242 of 424
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

[CENTER]
Quote:
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.

[/CENTER]

Racial hygiene

[CENTER]
Quote:
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.

[/CENTER]

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

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs

[CENTER]
Quote:
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.

[/CENTER]

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.
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 #243 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

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.
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 #244 of 424
NYT gives scathing review of the film, but still adopts the film's pejorative use of "Darwinism" for "evolution."

*Whoosh*
post #245 of 424
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.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #246 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

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

I wouldn't agree with that either.
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 #247 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

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.

1) Evolution. Not Darwinism.

2) Evolution is not a "necessary condition" (in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions in logic) of the rise of Nazism in Germany after World War I, and you'd be hard-pressed to argue otherwise. For those who aren't following along, you're saying that the rise of the Nazi categorically could *not* have happened without the theory of evolution, a claim which is deficient on its face. Plus it seems inconsistent of you. Your man Wittgenstein rejects the use of necessary and sufficient conditions in favor of his "family resemblance" theory, if I remember my aesthetics philosophy correctly.

In your absence, I missed this slithery and deviant quality of your intellectual arguments.
post #248 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

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.
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 #249 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Just curious.

Yes.

[more filler text so this will post]

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #250 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

I wouldn't agree with that either.

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

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #251 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

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

Yes it is.
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 #252 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Yes.

[more filler text so this will post]

... so that we don't cover ground already covered.

Just a suggestion.
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 #253 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

1) Evolution. Not Darwinism.

2) Evolution is not a "necessary condition" (in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions in logic) of the rise of Nazism in Germany after World War I, and you'd be hard-pressed to argue otherwise. For those who aren't following along, you're saying that the rise of the Nazi categorically could *not* have happened without the theory of evolution, a claim which is deficient on its face. Plus it seems inconsistent of you. Your man Wittgenstein rejects the use of necessary and sufficient conditions in favor of his "family resemblance" theory, if I remember my aesthetics philosophy correctly.

In your absence, I missed this slithery and deviant quality of your intellectual arguments.

Right, like this argument needs more Austrio-German references.

Well, like I said, it's arguable. Hitler and his take on the master race certainly was buttressed by the "Science" of most favored races. Maybe he thought it was inevitable. The Nazi thing is touched on only briefly though.

They make a much bigger deal over Eugenics -- which I don't think it's debatable that that apple did not fall far from the tree. You can go over to YouTube and see the propaganda films-- one they used in the movie -- Malthusian claims about what will happen if we let all the freaks live, not very nice.


Here is a quote from Berlinski's latest book -- and I think it makes their point. Materialism is not a force for restraining our natural tendencies to do evil -- if you follow it to it's logical end, you will get a Hilter, Pol Pot or a Stalin. I don't think that tack is arguable. Now, most people stop before you get to that end, but some ambitious types don't stop.

Quote:
In the early days of the German advance into Eastern Europe, before the possibility of Soviet retribution even entered their untroubled imagination, Nazi extermination squads would sweep into villages, and after forcing villagers to dig their own graves, murder their victims with machine guns. On one such occasion somewhere in Eastern Europe, an SS officer watched languidly, his machine gun cradled, as an elderly and bearded Hasidic Jew laboriously dug what he knew to be his grave.

Standing up straight, he addressed his executioner. "God is watching what you are doing," he said.

And then he was shot dead.

What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party, theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #254 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Yes it is.

No it's not, midwinter -- no one escapes their Age.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #255 of 424
Also, I can't edit my posts - what's up with that?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #256 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Also, I can't edit my posts - what's up with that?

The database is wonky. Right click the edit post button and select "open in a new window"
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 #257 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

The database is wonky. Right click the edit post button and select "open in a new window"

Danke!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #258 of 424
Silly people who question the theory of evodelusion what are they thinking??

Don't they all know it is not kosher to question the people's republic of science and their tanks in the public square? Don't these silly Christians and other "believers" of something other than evodelusion realize that it is not "permitted" to question the authority of the people's republic of science?

I mean to go into the public square like Ben Stein has done with a film clearly goes against party rules..

I hear the tanks nearing the square.

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 #259 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

No it's not, midwinter -- no one escapes their Age.

Yes, it is. Hitler's genocide is no different than any other genocide. Evolution (or, rather, eugenics) was used to defend it, not create it.
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 #260 of 424
I don't get the "people who think God is watching don't do that" bit, because they very obviously do.

It all depends on which God, and how that God is imagined to think, doesn't it?

Now I know, DMZ, that your God, that is, by your lights the one and only and correct and true God, does not countenance such things (at least not overtly), but that's not an argument for the the superior ethics of adherents of "God", inclusive, given all we know of all that has been done under that banner.

So you're not really arguing belief in God vs. "materialism", but rather belief in your God vs. everybody else.

Does that mean that I get to pick examples of "materialist" cultures that don't commit genocide-- that, in fact, do a pretty good job of seeing to the public good-- and make the general claim for "materialism"?

If you want to claim that rivers of blood let in the name of God were due to error-- that the current God is much better now, thank you, then couldn't I claim the same for any "materialist" cultures that have previously transgressed?

For the life of me, I can't see how anyone would want to argue that, in general, belief in God tends to produce less killing than no belief, because it's so manifestly untrue.
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 #261 of 424
post #262 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Yes, it is. Hitler's genocide is no different than any other genocide. Evolution (or, rather, eugenics) was used to defend it, not create it.

Yes, but it's arguable that is was a necessary tool in his ideology. The meme of "most favored races" was pretty strong at the time.

It might be better to just cop to that mistake and move on. Eugenics, favored races etc., prolonged racism, and gave too many people an excuse -- it was materialism taken way too far. Which is their point in the film; and a only very small part of it.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #263 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I don't get the "people who think God is watching don't do that" bit, because they very obviously do.

It all depends on which God, and how that God is imagined to think, doesn't it?

Now I know, DMZ, that your God, that is, by your lights the one and only and correct and true God, does not countenance such things (at least not overtly), but that's not an argument for the the superior ethics of adherents of "God", inclusive, given all we know of all that has been done under that banner.

So you're not really arguing belief in God vs. "materialism", but rather belief in your God vs. everybody else.

Does that mean that I get to pick examples of "materialist" cultures that don't commit genocide-- that, in fact, do a pretty good job of seeing to the public good-- and make the general claim for "materialism"?

If you want to claim that rivers of blood let in the name of God were due to error-- that the current God is much better now, thank you, then couldn't I claim the same for any "materialist" cultures that have previously transgressed?

For the life of me, I can't see how anyone would want to argue that, in general, belief in God tends to produce less killing than no belief, because it's so manifestly untrue.

I think the point is that materialism taken too far (or Darwinism to its logical conclusion) is very bad.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #264 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I think the point is that materialism taken too far (or Darwinism to its logical conclusion) is very bad.

Except there is no such thing as "Darwinism", no "logical conclusion" to the theory of evolution (since that would require a jump from a descriptive system to a prescriptive moral one), and pretty much anything goes bad if "taken too far", a phrase so broad as to be meaningless.
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 #265 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Except there is no such thing as "Darwinism", no "logical conclusion" to the theory of evolution (since that would require a jump from a descriptive system to a prescriptive moral one), and pretty much anything goes bad if "taken too far", a phrase so broad as to be meaningless.

But we aren't talking about "everything" -- we're talking about the academy taking things too far. We are talking about taking natural selection and using it as a placeholder where it has no business. We are also talking about leading academics calling religion child abuse. The movie's point -- it uses the Berlin Wall as it's thread -- is that this attitude is beginning to take itself too seriously in terms of stopping free inquiry.

Look at it this way: during the 20th century, Berlinski's point holds -- total disregard for humans as objects, or a total disregard of God, or a total acceptance of social science as the end-all be all to perfect humanity -- call it what you will -- turned into a bloodbath. But we have people telling us, very prominent people, that the answer to our problems is No Religion.

Now, even some of the very liberal would be willing to admit that religion can give us input in our explorations into ethics. But, when P.Z. Myers glibly quips "religion needs to be reduced to a role similar to knitting," then I have to object, and you should too. Myers and his type are well intrenched in academia, and we've had no shortage of vicious polemics demonstrating that attitude. Harris, Dennet, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. -- the "religion is child abuse" crowd.

No religion turned out very badly, equivocations extraordinaire notwithstanding; it's foolish to ignore that sort of bigotry. I think by any objective measure "religion as knitting" is going way overboard.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #266 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

But we aren't talking about "everything" -- we're talking about the academy taking things too far. We are talking about taking natural selection and using it as a placeholder where it has no business. We are also talking about leading academics calling religion child abuse. The movie's point -- it uses the Berlin Wall as it's thread -- is that this attitude is beginning to take itself too seriously in terms of stopping free inquiry.

Look at it this way: during the 20th century, Berlinski's point holds -- total disregard for humans as objects, or a total disregard of God, or a total acceptance of social science as the end-all be all to perfect humanity -- call it what you will -- turned into a bloodbath. But we have people telling us, very prominent people, that the answer to our problems is No Religion.

Now, even some of the very liberal would be willing to admit that religion can give us input in our explorations into ethics. But, when P.Z. Myers glibly quips "religion needs to be reduced to a role similar to knitting," then I have to object, and you should too. Myers and his type are well intrenched in academia, and we've had no shortage of vicious polemics demonstrating that attitude. Harris, Dennet, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. -- the "religion is child abuse" crowd.

No religion turned out very badly, equivocations extraordinaire notwithstanding; it's foolish to ignore that sort of bigotry. I think by any objective measure "religion as knitting" is going way overboard.

post #267 of 424
Crap, I must have skipped the lecture on blue dot theory.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #268 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Crap, I must have skipped the lecture on blue dot theory.

Pity.

One of Guybrush Threepwood's female relatives sat in the front row.
post #269 of 424
Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know (about intelligent design and evolution)

[CENTER]
Quote:
1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.

When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in italics):

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book (emphasis added in italics):

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes.

2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.
4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.
6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.

[/CENTER]

Expelled Exposed: The Truth behind the Fiction

[CENTER]
Quote:
Hitler & Eugenics

Summary

Expelled’s inflammatory implication that Darwin and the science of evolution “led to” eugenics, Nazis, and Stalinism is deeply offensive and detrimental to public discussion and understanding of science, religion, and history.

[/CENTER]

Please also see my previous post about Hitler and the correct root of his beliefs, Christianity.
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 #270 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Yes, but it's arguable that is was a necessary tool in his ideology. The meme of "most favored races" was pretty strong at the time.

It might be better to just cop to that mistake and move on. Eugenics, favored races etc., prolonged racism, and gave too many people an excuse -- it was materialism taken way too far. Which is their point in the film; and a only very small part of it.

And see, this is my point. No one is denying that Hitler used principles of ëvolution¨in his actions. Im´arguing that evolution does not LEAD to Hitler. Saying that ignores the thousands of years of animal husbandry which Darwin discusses in some detail in Origin.

And on that note, Im óff to go hear The Swell Season in Salt Lake City.
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 #271 of 424
once again...

Evolution doesn't kill people. Guns... er... I mean, people kill people.
post #272 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Please also se my previous post about Hitler and the correct root of his beliefs, Christianity.

And I agree... Martin Luther had a much greater impact on the enabling of the holocaust than Charles Darwin.
post #273 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Im´arguing that evolution does not LEAD to Hitler.

Right, but the movie is careful to say as much -- that's nearly verbatim what Berlinski said.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #274 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And I agree... Martin Luther had a much greater impact on the enabling of the holocaust than Charles Darwin.

Damn, guys, I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing: The movie clearly states that Darwinism was only one necessary condition.


Edit: that's for the holocaust -- with Eugenics, they go further. I think it's obvious that Darwinism made the killing and sterilizing of the mentally ill, etc. respectable -- shooting and skinning aborigines for the Smithsonian, etc. (something they didn't put in the movie) Stein visits a "hospital" in Germany, sees the killing rooms and the dissection table.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #275 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Damn, guys, I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing: The movie clearly states that Darwinism was only one necessary condition.

But the fact is, it wasn't at all a "necessary" condition. Not at all.

Racism and Genocide happened before "Darwinism" was used as an excuse and it's happening now in places where "Darwinism" isn't being used as an excuse.

To say it was at all a "necessary" condition of the holocaust is just plain dumb. The holocaust would have happened anyway. Period.
post #276 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.
4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.
6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.

As for #2, they make no claims about Stein's speech: staged, extras, activists, etc.

As for #3, that drives home the movie's point home further.

As for #4, this is critical I was listening carefully -- Sternberg was presented, again, semi-direct quote: "worked for a journal affiliated with the Smithsonian."

#5 is laughable

As for #6, that had little to do with the point of the movie. They could have had a 100 John Polkinghornes on, it wouldn't have much to say about stifling free inquiry.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #277 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

The movie clearly states that Darwinism was only one necessary condition.

One necessary condition? And how pray tell does one go about proving this, in a logical construct, where the other branch doesn't exist.

A chain of unprovable events?

Compared to a chain of known events, such as the near complete extermination of Native Americans, laid at Christianity's doorstep.

Christianity has way more to explain for itself and it's behaviors, than any faith based belief system, that I can think of at the moment. \
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 #278 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

As for #2, they make no claims about Stein's speech: staged, extras, activists, etc.

As for #3, that drives home the movie's point home further.

As for #4, this is critical I was listening carefully -- Sternberg was presented, again, semi-direct quote: "worked for a journal affiliated with the Smithsonian."

#5 is laughable

As for #6, that had little to do with the point of the movie.

Please sent an email the Scientific American as to the errors of their ways. As for me I'll take their word as gospel. Oops, oh no, d'oh, drat, Jiminy Cricket, there I go comparing Science to Religion, again.
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 #279 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But the fact is, it wasn't at all a "necessary" condition. Not at all.

Racism and Genocide happened before "Darwinism" was used as an excuse and it's happening now in places where "Darwinism" isn't being used as an excuse.

To say it was at all a "necessary" condition of the holocaust is just plain dumb. The holocaust would have happened anyway. Period.

tonton, all I can do is tell you the truth. Darwin, as a good little boy of the Enlightenment, wanted out from under God. Everybody did. The deterministic view of the Universe was bought into, political organization as salvific accepted, Hegel and Marx invested in -- history as a dialectical struggle of becoming, or history as the story of class warfare. It's all there.

You round the corner of the turn of the 20th century, man as a tool of the State had come into it's own. Science would perfect the race, and the State would perfect the man's existence. The men who applied these godless ideas effected the bloodiest century in the history of mankind.

And Darwin did all he could to unwittingly be a part of it.

Quote:
What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party, theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #280 of 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Please sent an email the Scientific American as to the errors of their ways. As for me I'll take their word as gospel. Oops, oh no, d'oh, drat, Jiminy Cricket, there I go comparing Science to Religion, again.

Fine, I will go back in time and sent them an email.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

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