OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 11:31:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New movie “Expelled” challenges Darwinian theory  (Read 46977 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
_Seraphim_
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Diocese of Western America (under His Grace Bishop Maxim)
Posts: 657


May Orthodoxy become our orthopraxis


WWW
« on: March 19, 2008, 02:24:32 PM »

You will want to see this one in the theater.  The movie should be coming up in the next few months as part of the conversation in our parishes and schools, so you might as well get a sneak peak now so you can nod knowingly when it bursts onto the scene:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf
Logged

"Disputes merely about words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike."
-St. Athanasius (†444)

Pray for Orthodox Unity

"Behold the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology"
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state04.html
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,268



« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2008, 08:08:54 PM »

Looks very interesting. Good for Ben Stein.


By the way, the link didn't work for me so I found a video on YouTube.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE


I'll definitely see it.
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2008, 10:04:15 PM »

I realize that any comments made on a movie before one sees it isn't very smart.  But two things make me believe (hope?) that this movie is great are these; 1. I respect Ben Stein as a person who's always seemed to be very intelligent, mild mannered, and well reasoned. 2. We could finally have a movie about Intelligent Design that is itself well reasoned, challenging to the 'scientific' community, and NOT put out by fundementalists.  I could end up with egg on my face (which is why I usually have handi-wipes at the ready), but I'm thinking that I won't. 
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2008, 10:51:08 PM »

Looks very interesting. Good for Ben Stein.


By the way, the link didn't work for me so I found a video on YouTube.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE


I'll definitely see it.


Go Ben Stein!  Did you notice the "Bueller" reference at the end?  Grin
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2008, 11:17:37 PM »

"Intelligent design" as the "theory" now stands is a joke.  If Stein brings something new to light in this film regarding this, then all power to him.  However, IMHO, to equate biological Darwinism with Nazi-style eugenics as Stein does here is outrageous.  But then again, as I have stated again and again here, with my points seemingly falling on deaf ears, IMHO it's outrageous to juxtapose the theory of evolution with religious belief as people seem to do, especially (but not exclusively) in the United States.  So I will be sure not to see this movie, unless I hear from reputable sources that it really makes one think about how life has developed on earth, and doesn't just throw out the same tired and untenable "intelligent design" arguments. 

The biological sciences are not the only academic discipline where a kind of obtuse refusal to look at things in any other way than the view that is currently held as the orthodox opinion.  In fact, this happens in varying degrees in all disciplines at various times, as far as I can tell.  So the kind of conspiracy theory that Stein appears to be putting forth here regarding evolution seems to me to be farfetched.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2008, 11:45:57 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,945



« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2008, 11:58:17 PM »

"However, IMHO, to equate biological Darwinism with Nazi-style eugenics as Stein does here is outrageous.  .

Perhaps you watched something different.  He remarked that the scientists who have published articles supporting some form of "intelligent design" have suggested that darwinism is dangerous.  There was no equivocation to the Nazis.  The reference to the Nazis was to contrast that with a free society where people can believe and speak as they wish and that the treatment of such scientists who challenge the status quo of Darwinian Natural selection as the primary governing evolutionary principle is akin to Nazism.

However, one should note that the Nazis appealed to Darwin's theories to justify their believe in a master race over others.  But that was not referred to in this trailer.

I, for one, do not have an opinion one way or the other as to the origin of man or the universe.  I am not qualified to make such determinations and I will let those in the scientific community debate and research it to their hearts' content.

But, I am all for freedom of speech and self-determination.  Persecution, one way or the other, is reprehensible and must be called out for what it is. I am intrigued and I will probably see this movie.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2008, 12:11:01 AM »

Perhaps you watched something different. 

I don't know why you would make this kind of snide remark.  Especially when you missed what I saw.

Quote
However, one should note that the Nazis appealed to Darwin's theories to justify their believe in a master race over others.  But that was not referred to in this trailer.

At the time when Stein was referring to how Darwinism might even be dangerous, an image of a death camp and its gas ovens were momentarily flashed on the screen.   


Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2008, 12:15:09 AM »

I don't know why you would make this kind of snide remark.  Especially when you missed what I saw.

At the time when Stein was referring to how Darwinism might even be dangerous, an image of a death camp and its gas ovens were momentarily flashed on the screen.   

I noticed it, too. But I suppose we must all have heard how Darwinism is the source of all evils; from genocide to homosexuality, to not brushing ones teeth correctly.  Grin

I don't mean to give offence, but this is a film I shall be delighted to miss.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 12:15:31 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2008, 12:15:53 AM »

I don't know why you would make this kind of snide remark.  Especially when you missed what I saw.
Brother, I am pleading with you here; please forgive him.  You two are Orthodox brothers, yes?  In the name of the Trinity, and for the sake of our salvation, please forgive him.

In Christ,

Gabriel
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2008, 12:27:58 AM »

Brother, I am pleading with you here; please forgive him.  You two are Orthodox brothers, yes?  In the name of the Trinity, and for the sake of our salvation, please forgive him.

In Christ,

Gabriel

No biggie, there is nothing to forgive.  I just don't see why it was necessary to use this kind of language.  I don't wish to be inflammatory here.  Forgive me if I come across this way.  I am very tired of debates about evolution.  I frankly don't understand the polarised nature of the debate; I find it baffling.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 12:32:00 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2008, 12:57:39 AM »

Supposedly when Ben Stein is interviewing Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins puts forward "space aliens" as a possible creator.  Anything but "God"!

It seems to me from the trailer and what I've read that this is less an apologetic for Intelligent Design, and more a critique of Darwinism and how academia limits debate on the subject.  I could be totally wrong though, the marketing of the movie is not the movie.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 01:01:27 AM by livefreeordie » Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,945



« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2008, 10:37:57 AM »

I don't know why you would make this kind of snide remark.  Especially when you missed what I saw.

I hardly would call it a snide remark. But since you seem to think it is, I apologize.

Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2008, 11:41:48 AM »

more a critique of Darwinism and how academia limits debate on the subject.

This just doesn't make any sense.  Why shouldn't there be limits on debate in academia?  Why should Brother Jed and his trope of toothless inbreds be allowed a platform in academia?   

Essentially what the flat eathers / anti-evolutionists are demanding is a debate with a Russian professor and someone who doesn't know a word a Russian nor even has read, much less studied, the classics of Russian literature.  It is simply nonsensical - in no other field would people demand that people who don't actually know anything about the subject matter be admitted to the debate (well except Climate Change, as clearly we need to defend the SUVs that God has given America). 

Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2008, 11:59:27 AM »

You will want to see this one in the theater.  The movie should be coming up in the next few months as part of the conversation in our parishes and schools, so you might as well get a sneak peak now so you can nod knowingly when it bursts onto the scene:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf



Yeah, I really wanna see this one.


however, only people with an open mind will want to see this film. Those who are closed minded will hate it and will try to tell people not to go see it.






JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2008, 12:51:14 PM »

You might be right, but it appears that most, if not all, of his interviews are with scientists in the field at Major Universities.  I'm pretty sure the majority of the people he admitted to the debate are in the field.  And he put people like Richard Dawkins in the film with their basically unedited responses. I don't think Brother Jed and his trope of toothless inbreds are in the film. Although since none of us have seen it we are all speculating.

Looking at people's reaction though, Ben Stein seems to have hit a nerve which means he must be hitting close to some truth.

This just doesn't make any sense.  Why shouldn't there be limits on debate in academia?  Why should Brother Jed and his trope of toothless inbreds be allowed a platform in academia?   

Essentially what the flat eathers / anti-evolutionists are demanding is a debate with a Russian professor and someone who doesn't know a word a Russian nor even has read, much less studied, the classics of Russian literature.  It is simply nonsensical - in no other field would people demand that people who don't actually know anything about the subject matter be admitted to the debate (well except Climate Change, as clearly we need to defend the SUVs that God has given America). 


« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 12:53:25 PM by livefreeordie » Logged
_Seraphim_
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Diocese of Western America (under His Grace Bishop Maxim)
Posts: 657


May Orthodoxy become our orthopraxis


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2008, 02:51:34 PM »

Go Ben Stein!  Did you notice the "Bueller" reference at the end?  Grin

 Grin
Logged

"Disputes merely about words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike."
-St. Athanasius (†444)

Pray for Orthodox Unity

"Behold the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology"
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state04.html
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2008, 04:31:46 PM »

This just doesn't make any sense.  Why shouldn't there be limits on debate in academia?  Why should Brother Jed and his trope of toothless inbreds be allowed a platform in academia?   

Essentially what the flat eathers / anti-evolutionists are demanding is a debate with a Russian professor and someone who doesn't know a word a Russian nor even has read, much less studied, the classics of Russian literature.  It is simply nonsensical - in no other field would people demand that people who don't actually know anything about the subject matter be admitted to the debate (well except Climate Change, as clearly we need to defend the SUVs that God has given America). 



That's about the best summary of the "evolutionist-creationist" "debates" I've ever read! Smiley

As far as the Russian language and literature are concerned... I thought, maybe a good analogy will be, "I can debate a Russian lit professor because I've had a few White Russians before dinner!"  laugh laugh laugh
Logged

Love never fails.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2008, 07:15:13 PM »

As far as the Russian language and literature are concerned... I thought, maybe a good analogy will be, "I can debate a Russian lit professor because I've had a few White Russians before dinner!"  laugh laugh laugh

I like the sounds of that.  Anything that can be made into a drinking game works for me...
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2008, 07:27:45 PM »

This just doesn't make any sense.  Why shouldn't there be limits on debate in academia?  Why should Brother Jed and his trope of toothless inbreds be allowed a platform in academia?   

Essentially what the flat eathers / anti-evolutionists are demanding is a debate with a Russian professor and someone who doesn't know a word a Russian nor even has read, much less studied, the classics of Russian literature.  It is simply nonsensical - in no other field would people demand that people who don't actually know anything about the subject matter be admitted to the debate (well except Climate Change, as clearly we need to defend the SUVs that God has given America). 

^^LOL - A most humourous and apt illustration of the evolution/creationist debate!!
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2008, 07:30:37 PM »

I would like to see this movie but it appears that there are no plans for screening it in Canada.

Who wants to take a video camera into the theatre and make me a copy?  Just kidding . . . or am I?   Grin
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2008, 07:34:40 PM »

I would like to see this movie but it appears that there are no plans for screening it in Canada.

Who wants to take a video camera into the theatre and make me a copy?  Just kidding . . . or am I?   Grin

Sorry, I'm one of the close-minded people, who already hate this film and will be telling everyone to stay away.  Tongue
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2008, 08:07:10 PM »

Sorry, I'm one of the close-minded people, who already hate this film and will be telling everyone to stay away.  Tongue
Fair enough.  I would prefer to get the facts first but I completely understand your opinion; it is for a similar reason that I have never seen and never plan on seeing The DaVinci Code.

Please feel free to cover your eyes when you see any of my future posts regarding this movie  Grin
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2008, 08:16:40 PM »

Fair enough.  I would prefer to get the facts first but I completely understand your opinion; it is for a similar reason that I have never seen and never plan on seeing The DaVinci Code.

Please feel free to cover your eyes when you see any of my future posts regarding this movie  Grin

^^ LOL - Love it!!
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 08:17:26 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2008, 08:43:50 PM »

Pravoslavbob - You might find this interesting....

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/synopsis

This movie follows Ben Stein as he seeks to determine whether Intelligent Design is a pseudo-science trying to undermine evolutionary biology or whether it is legitimate science being suppressed by a scientific establishment that is hostile to any deviation from the status quo. Along the way, Stein is told that evolutionary biology is responsible for the Holocaust, Stalinism, and the Second World War, and that only Intelligent Design and the intervention of God can adequately explain the existence of life.




Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #24 on: March 28, 2008, 09:15:29 PM »

 
September 27, 2007
Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin
By CORNELIA DEAN

Correction Appended

A few months ago, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called “Crossroads.”

The film, with Ben Stein, the actor, economist and freelance columnist, as its host, is described on Rampant’s Web site as an examination of the intersection of science and religion. Dr. Dawkins was an obvious choice. An eminent scientist who teaches at Oxford University in England, he is also an outspoken atheist who has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect.

But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has a different producer, Premise Media.

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” According to its Web site, the film asserts that people in academia who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have unfairly lost their jobs, been denied tenure or suffered other penalties as part of a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms.

Mr. Stein appears in the film’s trailer, backed by the rock anthem “Bad to the Bone,” declaring that he wants to unmask “people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God.”

If he had known the film’s premise, Dr. Dawkins said in an e-mail message, he would never have appeared in it. “At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front,” he said.

Eugenie C. Scott, a physical anthropologist who heads the National Center for Science Education, said she agreed to be filmed after receiving what she described as a deceptive invitation.

“I have certainly been taped by people and appeared in productions where people’s views are different than mine, and that’s fine,” Dr. Scott said, adding that she would have appeared in the film anyway. “I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t.”

The growing furor over the movie, visible in blogs, on Web sites and in conversations among scientists, is the latest episode in the long-running conflict between science and advocates of intelligent design, who assert that the theory of evolution has obvious scientific flaws and that students should learn that intelligent design, a creationist idea, is an alternative approach.

There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And while individual scientists may embrace religious faith, the scientific enterprise looks to nature to answer questions about nature. As scientists at Iowa State University put it last year, supernatural explanations are “not within the scope or abilities of science.”

Mr. Stein, a freelance columnist who writes Everybody’s Business for The New York Times, conducts the film’s on-camera interviews. The interviews were lined up for him by others, and he denied misleading anyone. “I don’t remember a single person asking me what the movie was about,” he said in a telephone interview.

Walt Ruloff, a producer and partner in Premise Media, also denied that there was any deception. Mr. Ruloff said in a telephone interview that Rampant Films was a Premise subsidiary, and that the movie’s title was changed on the advice of marketing experts, something he said was routine in filmmaking. He said the film would open in February and would not be available for previews until January.

Judging from material posted online and interviews with people who appear in the film, it cites several people as victims of persecution, including Richard Sternberg, a biologist and an unpaid research associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and Guillermo Gonzalez, an astrophysicist denied tenure at Iowa State University this year.

Dr. Sternberg was at the center of a controversy over a paper published in 2004 in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed publication he edited at the time. The paper contended that an intelligent agent was a better explanation than evolution for the so-called Cambrian explosion, a great diversification of life forms that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago.

The paper’s appearance in a peer-reviewed journal was a coup for intelligent design advocates, but the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, which publishes the journal, almost immediately repudiated it, saying it had appeared without adequate review.

Dr. Gonzalez is an astrophysicist and co-author of “The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery” (Regnery, 2004). The book asserts that earth’s ability to support complex life is a result of supernatural intervention.

Dr. Gonzalez’s supporters say his views cost him tenure at Iowa State. University officials said their decision was based, among other things, on his record of scientific publications while he was at the university.

Mr. Stein, a prolific author who has acted in movies like “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and appeared on television programs including “Win Ben Stein’s Money” on Comedy Central, said in a telephone interview that he accepted the producers’ invitation to participate in the film not because he disavows the theory of evolution — he said there was a “very high likelihood” that Darwin was on to something — but because he does not accept that evolution alone can explain life on earth.

He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called “From Darwin to Hitler.”

On a blog on the “Expelled” Web site, one writer praised Mr. Stein as “a public-intellectual-freedom-fighter” who was taking on “a tough topic with a bit of humor.” Others rejected the film’s arguments as “stupid,” “fallacious” or “moronic,” or described intelligent design as the equivalent of suggesting that the markets moved “at the whim of a monetary fairy.”

Mr. Ruloff, a Canadian who lives in British Columbia, said he turned to filmmaking after selling his software company in the 1990s. He said he decided to make “Expelled,” his first project, after he became interested in genomics and biotechnology but discovered “there are certain questions you are just not allowed to ask and certain approaches you are just not allowed to take.”

He said he knew researchers, whom he would not name, who had studied cellular mechanisms and made findings “riddled with metaphysical implications” and suggestive of an intelligent designer. But they are afraid to report them, he said.

Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” (Simon & Schuster, 2006), explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line,” Mr. Ruloff said.

That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are “a bit puzzled” by his faith, he said, “they are generally very respectful.” He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.

Dr. Collins was not asked to participate in the film.

Another scientist who was, P. Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, said the film’s producers had misrepresented its purpose, but said he would have agreed to an interview anyway. But, he said in a posting on The Panda’s Thumb Web site, he would have made a “more aggressive” attack on the claims of the movie.

Dr. Scott, whose organization advocates for the teaching of evolution and against what it calls the intrusion of creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes, said the filmmakers were exploiting Americans’ sense of fairness as a way to sell their religious views. She said she feared the film would depict “the scientific community as intolerant, as close-minded, and as persecuting those who disagree with them. And this is simply wrong.”

Correction: September 29, 2007


A picture caption with the continuation of a front-page article on Thursday about the coming documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” misidentified the scientist shown. He is Peter Atkins, a chemistry professor at Oxford University — not Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist at Oxford. (Both men were interviewed for the film.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,453



« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2008, 10:08:09 PM »

This just doesn't make any sense.  Why shouldn't there be limits on debate in academia?  Why should Brother Jed and his trope of toothless inbreds be allowed a platform in academia?
 

How smug.  I'll deal with that below.

Quote
Essentially what the flat eathers / anti-evolutionists are demanding is a debate with a Russian professor and someone who doesn't know a word a Russian nor even has read, much less studied, the classics of Russian literature.  It is simply nonsensical - in no other field would people demand that people who don't actually know anything about the subject matter be admitted to the debate
Like religion.  I've heard plenty of atheists opine what the Church should do.

Quote
(well except Climate Change, as clearly we need to defend the SUVs that God has given America). 

because we of course know that every scientist believes in global warming, and all the evidence supports it.

I just had a conversation about this at work (teachers in high school), my colleague expresses surprise that I was cured of evolution at the University of Chicago.  During the course sequence on evolutionary biology.  The "evidence" didn't add up.

Yes, much to your diappointment (and I'm guessing Greeki) there are PLENTY who have read, and more than studied, the works of evolutionists, and know more than enough about the subject matter to be admitted to the debate.

btw, a study on the application of the scientific method done in the 80s would suggest that Brother Jed would do better than Dawkins at it: as Niels Bohr said, opposition to his theories would occur when the old scientists died.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,980


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2008, 01:08:25 AM »

Why is it Ben Stein who is leading the movie?  Ben Stein is not a reputable scientist.  That's not his forte.  He claims to interview reputable biologists, but if the point of this movie is to convince reputable scientists, they wouldn't use Ben Stein.  If the point of this movie is to spread ideas among "laymen" using a famous stereotypically "smart" celebrity, then they have done their job.  And just by doing this, the movie becomes suspect on whether its purpose would be a sincere one or not.  At this moment, I feel, like many others here, that the intentions are not sincere, and that the added philosophical baggage (i.e. Holocaust and horrors) only makes it worse among the scientific community.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 01:09:09 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2008, 01:30:19 PM »

I just had a conversation about this at work (teachers in high school)

That terrifies me.  You teach children?!?!? 

If they are letting flat earthists teach children in the US, it is no wonder that US children are about the dumbest in the industrialised world. 
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2008, 04:38:10 PM »

Pravoslavbob - You might find this interesting....

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/synopsis

This movie follows Ben Stein as he seeks to determine whether Intelligent Design is a pseudo-science trying to undermine evolutionary biology or whether it is legitimate science being suppressed by a scientific establishment that is hostile to any deviation from the status quo. Along the way, Stein is told that evolutionary biology is responsible for the Holocaust, Stalinism, and the Second World War, and that only Intelligent Design and the intervention of God can adequately explain the existence of life.



It's true. It's called social Darwinism. It was the fad of the age in the late 18 hundreds to mid 19 hundreds. Hitler was heavily influenced by it. The Robber Barrians of America were heavily influenced by it. Carnegie Mellon University (a school near Pittsburgh) was at one time involved in it.

The founder of Planned parenthood was heavily influenced by it...........ect.

I maybe wrong, but I think Woodrow Wilson(a U.S. president in the early 19 hundreds) could have been heavily influenced by it as well.

I may be wrong again...because it's been awhile since I looked into it, but I think the "eugenics movment" came from that as well.


When teaching Darwinism in school they never tought us what social Darwinism and Darwinism in general has done to the "Australian Aboriginese". Many of them were hunted and killed and put on display as missing links.

I may be wrong about this next one, because I haven't looked at it in a while, but I think the same was true for the African pygmy. They too were hunted down and put on display as missing links......but don't quote me on that because I could be wrong.



What was said wasn't far from the truth.

You won't learn that in school. You won't learn that when they are forcing neo-Darwinism down your mouth. I had to learn this elsewhere. We were brainwashed in school, and we were only allowed to hear one side of the story.

There is a history to all this and it ain't all peaches and cream. If you have a child then you need to teach your children what they are not getting in school. They will be brainwashed in highschool and college....so teach them the other side of the story.



I'm not against evolution per say.....well I'm against Macro-evolution......but I think both sides should be tought.....both the good and the bad.

Both for & against.







JNORM888


« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 05:02:35 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2008, 04:40:19 PM »

All the trailors.



http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2008, 05:07:33 PM »

That terrifies me.  You teach children?!?!? 

If they are letting flat earthists teach children in the US, it is no wonder that US children are about the dumbest in the industrialised world. 


It's wrong to assume that everyone in the past believed in a flat earth. When Saint Augustine made his defense for "a flat earth" he was arguing against christians who believed the opposite.


If everyone believed in a flat earth then Christopher Columbus wouldn't of risked trying to reach china by way of the Atlantic Ocean. I maybe wrong about what I am about to say because It's been years since I looked at it, but I believe Columbus believed the earth wasn't flat because of what he found in scripture.



Also most of the advances in science in the last 500 years came from both Roman Catholic and Protestant christians.......who believed in both a creator and science.

many of whom were clergymen.



And the idea about American kids being the dumbest in the world has nothing to do with "christian teachers". It has everything to do with the "white flight" in urban areas in the 1960's, 70's and 80's.

And the lack of tax "School Revenue" in certain urban areas. It has a racial and political overtone that goes back to the history of this country. And in Pittsburgh the closing of steel mills and other manufacturing jobs will have an effect on the school district. Without work people can't pay the higher taxes needed for good books and teachers......add to that the full control of the teachers union, and a 9 month school year and you have the problem you have today.

Most home schoolers and private christian schools do well and have high test scores.





So I disagree with your diatribe.










JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 05:27:02 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2008, 08:05:45 PM »


If everyone believed in a flat earth then Christopher Columbus wouldn't of risked trying to reach china by way of the Atlantic Ocean. I maybe wrong about what I am about to say because It's been years since I looked at it, but I ]believe Columbus believed the earth wasn't flat because of what he found in scripture.

Erastothenes perhaps? The objections of the Church to financing Columbus in his endevour to reach the Indies from a western sea route weren't anything to do with people believing in a flat earth. At the time, the circumference of the earth was believed to be more than it acutally is and sailing off into the sunset was considered a death sentence. I remember reading that Columbus presented a much smaller circumference that is actual to convince their Majesties of Spain. I don't recall all the details, but I do recall being flabbergasted when my elder granddaughter came home from her Christian school and told me that her teacher informed her that the Church refused to finance Columbus because Catholics at the time believed in a flat earth.  Roll Eyes

Quote
Also most of the advances in science in the last 500 years came from both Roman Catholic and Protestant christians.......who believed in both a creator and science.

I should imagine that most Christians still do believe in both a Creator and science; though obviously not for the same benefits. And Creation ex nihilo falls under the heading of abiogenesis not evolution. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. I think all would agree that abiogenesis is a fact; there once was no life on earth and that now there is; regardless of how one imagines it all happened. Creation, for instance, is a theory of abiogenesis. And surely, those who exclude the evidence of science are thin on the ground, even though they seem to make so much noise in the US that one might be convinced they are stronger in number that is actual.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2008, 08:27:23 PM »


It's true. It's called social Darwinism. It was the fad of the age in the late 18 hundreds to mid 19 hundreds. Hitler was heavily influenced by it. The Robber Barrians of America were heavily influenced by it. Carnegie Mellon University (a school near Pittsburgh) was at one time involved in it.

The founder of Planned parenthood was heavily influenced by it...........ect.

I maybe wrong, but I think Woodrow Wilson(a U.S. president in the early 19 hundreds) could have been heavily influenced by it as well.

I may be wrong again...because it's been awhile since I looked into it, but I think the "eugenics movment" came from that as well.

When teaching Darwinism in school they never tought us what social Darwinism and Darwinism in general has done to the "Australian Aboriginese". Many of them were hunted and killed and put on display as missing links.

I may be wrong about this next one, because I haven't looked at it in a while, but I think the same was true for the African pygmy. They too were hunted down and put on display as missing links......but don't quote me on that because I could be wrong.

What was said wasn't far from the truth.

You won't learn that in school. You won't learn that when they are forcing neo-Darwinism down your mouth. I had to learn this elsewhere. We were brainwashed in school, and we were only allowed to hear one side of the story.

There is a history to all this and it ain't all peaches and cream. If you have a child then you need to teach your children what they are not getting in school. They will be brainwashed in highschool and college....so teach them the other side of the story.

The simple fact is that evolution does not have moral consequences. But mankind does have a wonderful way of finding the answers it desires to promote its particular prejudice. Long before Darwin was a gleam in his daddy's eye, social injustices existed. I guess we could accept that Darwinism or the theory of evolution is the cause of all the social ills you have mentioned, but I think we would be naive in doing so. Rather these things are the result of the twisted interpretation of the theory that has been used by some. In the same way, the bible has been used to promote slavery, the subjugation of women, child-abuse, freakish mind control and so many other social ills that we probably would be wise to burn every copy. However, mankind's misuse of the bible hardly makes the bible at fault.

Quote
I'm not against evolution per say.....well I'm against Macro-evolution

The claim that macro-evolution is distinct from micro-evolution is erroneous.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html.


Quote
......but I think both sides should be tought.....both the good and the bad.

Both sides of what?









Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 29, 2008, 09:29:23 PM »

Quote
And Creation ex nihilo falls under the heading of abiogenesis not evolution. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.

The idea of "evolution" or slow change goes beyond bio life. After the Frence Revolutionary War the idea of slow change over a long period of time became in vogue.


The idea of slow change is the standard idea in alot of different sciences. It's in Cosmology, Geology....ect. Infact, Charles Darwin got his idea of "evolution" from a geology book that he read while on his way to those Islands. He also borrowed a few ideas from his grandfather. Infact, you can find his grandfathers book online.


but in regards to Cosmology:

 slow change of billions of years for Planets and stars to form. It's not uncommon to hear people talk about the "evolution of the universe".



The idea of slow change permeates almost everything. I personally vouch for "Catastrophism". Well ....what I call Theistic Catastrophism. Because God's providencial hand touches everything.





evolution = slow change

revolution = fast change



Quote
Creation, for instance, is a theory of abiogenesis. And surely, those who exclude the evidence of science are thin on the ground, even though they seem to make so much noise in the US that one might be convinced they are stronger in number that is actual.


I disagree. Creation is a theory of the Universe being (ex-nihilo). Creationists disagree among themselves about "abiogenesis".

The problem is not "excluding evidence". This is what uninformed Atheists and Agnostics think. The truth is, modern Creationists interprete the evidence differently. And this is what it comes down to. "Interpreting" the evidence. Creationists can make the same claim that Atheistic and Agnostic scientists pick and choose what evidence they want to show the public.

Most creationists work side by side with Atheistic and Agnostic scientists. The only difference is the Creationists must shut up about their faith or else they will be "prosylatized" or fired from their jobs.


And the reason why it makes so much noise in the US is because we know God isn't dead. And we also know alot of the flaws and history of Darwinism that much of the rest of the World is ignorant of.



Quote
The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.


I disagree. the Darwinian theory of evolution may be talking about "life". But the idea of "evolution" predates Darwin's theory. It first started in Geology. Darwin picked it up and applied it to life. And then it was used for Cosmology.


Quote
The claim that macro-evolution is distinct from micro-evolution is erroneous.

Only to those that reject Creationism and uncritically embrace Darwinism & NeoDarwinism. What is erroneous is to believe that ground crawling Lizards became Feathered birds.

It takes faith to believe in Macro-Evolution. No one ever observed it. We can't observe it....it's nothing more than Darwinism Dogmaticism.

Talk Origins is corny.

Quote
Both sides of what?

The critical and uncritical side of Darwinism. As of right now noone is able to be critical of Darwinism without the threat of loosing their jobs.

Quote
The simple fact is that evolution does not have moral consequences.

Oh yes it does. Read up on "Social Darwinism". It was already tried.


Quote
But mankind does have a wonderful way of finding the answers it desires to promote its particular prejudice.


 Anciestral sin. We all were born with a tendency to please the cravings of the flesh.


Quote
Long before Darwin was a gleam in his daddy's eye, social injustices existed.

True, social Darwinism magnified it. Whatever "restraint" we had was lifted when that social theory was formed. The masses embraced it and much of the evil of the late 18 hundreds to mid 19 hundreds was the result.



 
Quote
I guess we could accept that Darwinism or the theory of evolution is the cause of all the social ills you have mentioned, but I think we would be naive in doing so.

It's not Naive.

What Ben Stein was talking about was "Social Darwinism". It's a theory supported by Darwin's friend and propagandist Herbert Spencer. It was real popular first in Germany then in Briton and the US. It eventualy made it's way in countries all over the World.

All beliefs have "implications". To say that Darwinism has no moral implications is naive. Atheists tell me this all the time, but they don't know what evil is....nor do they know what good is....so they don't know what "MORALITY" is.

Darwinism has Moral implications.


Quote
Rather these things are the result of the twisted interpretation of the theory that has been used by some. In the same way, the bible has been used to promote slavery, the subjugation of women, child-abuse, freakish mind control and so many other social ills that we probably would be wise to burn every copy. However, mankind's misuse of the bible hardly makes the bible at fault.



What you call twisting is nothing more than the logical conclusion of the belief system itself. Darwinists misuse the evidence just like mankind misuse the Bible.

Lets look at the Bible as the evidence and mankinds misues of it as the interpretation.

Those who are uncritical of Darwinism and NeoDarwinism are misinterpreting the evidence.


All Ben is trying to do is show the World what many of us knew for decades. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and the NeoDarwiists are acting like POPES. And they are putting those who question Darwinism on heresy trials.


By the way. Most of us who question Darwinism don't reject all of it. But we are critical of it.......as we should be.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 10:20:24 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 29, 2008, 09:45:11 PM »

Quote
Dr. Scott, whose organization advocates for the teaching of evolution and against what it calls the intrusion of creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes, said the filmmakers were exploiting Americans’ sense of fairness as a way to sell their religious views. She said she feared the film would depict “the scientific community as intolerant, as close-minded, and as persecuting those who disagree with them. And this is simply wrong.”

Good! I hope they cry. They need to be exposed because they are unfair.....and now the whole World will see it.








JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #35 on: March 29, 2008, 09:54:12 PM »

Pravoslavbob - You might find this interesting....

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/synopsis

This movie follows Ben Stein as he seeks to determine whether Intelligent Design is a pseudo-science trying to undermine evolutionary biology or whether it is legitimate science being suppressed by a scientific establishment that is hostile to any deviation from the status quo. Along the way, Stein is told that evolutionary biology is responsible for the Holocaust, Stalinism, and the Second World War, and that only Intelligent Design and the intervention of God can adequately explain the existence of life.

Thanks for that.  More evidence to support my boycott of the flim.  Wink


The simple fact is that evolution does not have moral consequences. But mankind does have a wonderful way of finding the answers it desires to promote its particular prejudice. Long before Darwin was a gleam in his daddy's eye, social injustices existed. I guess we could accept that Darwinism or the theory of evolution is the cause of all the social ills you have mentioned, but I think we would be naive in doing so. Rather these things are the result of the twisted interpretation of the theory that has been used by some. In the same way, the bible has been used to promote slavery, the subjugation of women, child-abuse, freakish mind control and so many other social ills that we probably would be wise to burn every copy. However, mankind's misuse of the bible hardly makes the bible at fault.


Well said.  Social Darwinism has very little to do with Darwinism.

« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 10:00:37 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 29, 2008, 10:05:06 PM »

Why is it Ben Stein who is leading the movie?  Ben Stein is not a reputable scientist.  That's not his forte.  He claims to interview reputable biologists, but if the point of this movie is to convince reputable scientists, they wouldn't use Ben Stein.  If the point of this movie is to spread ideas among "laymen" using a famous stereotypically "smart" celebrity, then they have done their job.  And just by doing this, the movie becomes suspect on whether its purpose would be a sincere one or not.  At this moment, I feel, like many others here, that the intentions are not sincere, and that the added philosophical baggage (i.e. Holocaust and horrors) only makes it worse among the scientific community.

So are you saying Hilter wasn't a fan of Social Darwinism?

Are you saying his racial ideas weren't influenced by Social Darwinism?







JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 10:05:42 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2008, 10:08:47 PM »

Thanks for that.  More evidence to support my boycott of the flim.  Wink



Well said.  Social Darwinism has very little to do with Darwinism.




According to who? To those that believed it in the late 18 hundreds to mid 19 hundreds?

Or to those who lived in the last 40 years?


What matters is the belief of the people of the time. And Darwin never denied Social Darwinism. There is a connection.


But to assume that's all the movie is about would be a misnomer. One should wait until the movie comes out first........before making that judgement.




Is Survival of the fittest part of "Darwinism"? Yes or No



Are human beings part of Nature? Yes or No



Why can't humans use what they have to survive over other humans?





JNORM888
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 10:17:52 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,980


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2008, 11:31:59 PM »

So are you saying Hilter wasn't a fan of Social Darwinism?

Are you saying his racial ideas weren't influenced by Social Darwinism?


JNORM888

Actually Darwinism can both influence Ghandi and Hitler.  It's all about competition of moral traits, not about immorality.  So, we can rightly also say Darwinism is responsible for human altruism, human societal organization, government systems like democratic republics, etc.  These particular traits of human behavior have been more successful than traits of tyranny.  So yes, it's about survival of the fittest, and it seems that certain moral behaviors are the "fittest".

So, to say Darwinism exclusively leads to one thing just shows that Ben Stein really doesn't know what in the world he's talking about, either that or there's really an agenda, or both.

God bless.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2008, 11:36:08 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #39 on: March 30, 2008, 04:12:51 PM »

It takes faith to believe in Macro-Evolution. No one ever observed it. We can't observe it....it's nothing more than Darwinism Dogmaticism.

Talk Origins is corny.

This is hardly a compelling argument in response to the contents of the link I posted. Time and time again our own resident biologist has explained that there is no real distinction between micro and macro evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.


There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct "kinds." This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.

Further Reading:
Wilkins, John, 1997. Macroevolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
« Last Edit: March 30, 2008, 04:25:45 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2008, 05:47:57 PM »


Well said.  Social Darwinism has very little to do with Darwinism.


I really don't care about ANY "isms." I know facts that say, "life evolves" (e.g., frequencies of alleles and genotypes in populations do change -> evolution, as defined; biogeographical boundaries between independently evolving populations are real -> speciation; mating preferences within vs. between any two of the independently evolving and biogeographically isolated populations are real -> speciation, "genera-ation," "taxonomic tree" etc.). So, life evolves. That's what we know. What philosophy this or that dimwit constructs based on this - I care not and it's not gonna change my understanding that there are facts supporting the idea that life evolves. So, LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES.  LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. LIFE EVOLVES. (...)  Grin
« Last Edit: March 30, 2008, 05:51:27 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2008, 08:09:10 PM »

^^LOL - I hear you, brother!
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2008, 09:04:39 PM »

Thank you, George, but I'm afraid your voice will not fall on receptive ears, especially in the religious community. People would rather listen to people with money than people with ideas.

As far as the movie trailer itself, I found Ben Stein's use of Holocaust images to be both tedious and insulting. Comparing your pet peeve to the Holocaust is tired rhetoric and hardly adds to the debate. Moreover, comparing the current debate between scientists who conduct actual research and ignorami who do not even understand the theory they so abhor to genocide insults the memory of every Holocaust victim. It reduces them to the victim of a philosophy rather than of the atrocities of a man who chose to hate. One can only hope Ben Stein's movie falls under the same "persecution" that happened to Mel Gibson. They both need an emergency egodectomy.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2008, 09:18:42 PM »

All of this talk of the ideology of the Holocaust as if it happened as a single unified event is entirely ahistorical and merely a regurgitation of Allied propaganda (having a few scapegoats made creating post-war Europe far simpler, and nobody really likes to admit their own guilt in these matters anyway).  Regardless of the ideology of the Nazi elite, the crimes of the Third Reich and its puppet states took the cooperation and active participation of large percentages of the involved populations.  Rather than this being some violent atheistic rage, Catholicism was deeply intertwined in the Croatian nationalism that produced Jasenovac.  Christianity's historical role in whipping up anti-semetic frenzies was certainly a sine qua non to the crimes that were committed in many cases (an interesting example is the Kielce Pogrom which was committed AFTER  the conclusion of the war).  Many people acted for many different reasons in one of the most complex events in human history - a simplistic scapegoating of darwinism for this is ludicrous and entirely inaccurate.  If a "documentary" is going to make that large of a factual error, why is it worth paying attention to anything else it claims?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,453



« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2008, 11:05:10 PM »

That terrifies me.  You teach children?!?!? 

If they are letting flat earthists teach children in the US, it is no wonder that US children are about the dumbest in the industrialised world. 

Yes, they should be taught by pinheads instead.

I think it has been mentioned several times that I teach High School.  You just noticing?

I think it also came up that you don't have children.

The problem with US children is the brat progeny of Dr. Spock, whose repentance of it has been mentioned on another thread.  In conection with the gun scare at my school Friday (yes, the greatest threat is that flat earth morality.  Got to get it out of their heads!).

I went undergrad and grad to the U of C, you know, the place with all the Nobel Prizes?  Whatever you can do, we can do meta. Where'd you get your sheep skin?

One of my best friends from my undergrad years was a paleotology student, and I recall him bringing up some survey of high school science teachers, showing some number (40%?) didn't believe in evolution.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.181 seconds with 71 queries.