What did Dawkins say? I didn't watch the movie.
He says a lot of things, but one is that he up front says that he is the worst spokesman for evolution, because he would have to say under oath that theism and evolution are incompatible. Now, that's admittedly just his opinion (one that I don't share, but many ID and Creationists and, importantly, Evolutionists do), but it comes up in the documentary when the evolutionists get into a discussion of their support from mainstream/liberal Christians.
The accute embassment of Mr. Dawkins can come from Ben's interview with him following up on the idea of Panspermia (one of the most hilarious parts of the movie on the origins of life "Aliens did it," an idea that Mr. Stein correctly identifies with Dr. Crick, whom he correctly identifies as the discoverer of DNA. Btw, Dr. Crick accepted the position at Churchcill College because it didn't have a chapel, and resigned in protest when the College accepted the donation of one. So much for tolerance). Mr. Dawkins admits that life could have a designer, but admanently denies it could be God. How objective and undogmatic.
One critic said the movie contradicts itself: the first half says ID has nothing to do with religion (and it doesn't) but then the second half goes on to accuse the evolutionists with irreligion. The critic misses the point: the evolutionists pushing the expulsion (not all evolutionsts) themselves make the point that science and religion are incompatible, and are enforcing dogmatic conformity on that issue. Many of those pointing out that evolutionsists, not the ID people, are acting out of dogma are self-described agnostics, non-religious, Jews, etc. (Ben Stein mentions himself in the last group in passing).
You're not getting it. Just because Hitler mentions evolution doesn't make evolution equivalent to Hitler's ideals.
You're not getting it. Because Hitler mentions evolution means a facile statement "that's not true evolutioniary science" isn't going to do. Marxists do just as much when they say Stalinism isn't true communism (Gorbochev went so far to say that it wasn't true Leninism
). In particular when the Academy trying to discredit ID has a vested interest in claiming the rights to decide whether Nazism was properly based on evolutionary science. You yourself said:
Actually Darwinism can both influence Ghandi and Hitler.
whicn means it is a two edged sword. People don't like how Hitler used the sword, so they say he didn't use it properly. How so?
When St. Constantine was emperor, he used the Cross to fight in war and kill the enemy.
I can't remember the movie when the actor grabs a processional Cross to fight off the mob.
Does that mean using the Cross will help you win bloody wars?
Uh, who won at Milvian bridge?
Hitler's use of evolution to justify his actions does not mean evolution is the culprit.
How about contributing factor? Accessory?
The battle with altruism is not so hard. We see it in other animals. That tells us the trait of altruism was adopted for the use of survival also. Groups got together and seem to understand that if they help one another,
Help those that help them. A great ethicist once said "Can't the heathen do the same."
Btw, Darwin stated the lack of charity and the abundance of cruelty in the animal world of natural selection made him lose his faith in God. Another failed seminarian.
love one another,
your anthropomorphism is showing
they can actually survive together, and make offspring successfully.
You haven't described any population in the animal world (except the human: the deprivileging of man by evolution and the consequences is something the movie touches on). At least none that evolutionary biology has studied.
What a novel idea! Instead of fighting, live in peace. This is where competition of traits come by.
and Survival of the Fittest goes where?
The trait of altruism vs. the trait of totalitarianism. Evolution is not the latter only, or the former only.
The Eugenicists make a better argument that Evolution is the former only (something the doc also shows, and yes, where Nazism comes in at that point).
The fight between the traits is the fundamental law of evolution.
What happened to the "make love, not war" you espoused above? That "instead of fighting, live in peace?" Now you are sounding like a Eugenicist.
What I seem to understand is that the movie (which shamefully lied to Dawkins and many other evolutionists, not quite the exemplary attitude)
I don't know: what is the ethics on undercover reporting? Do investigators announce themselves to those they are investigating?
The movie makes reference to the fact that what many evolutionists say in public and what they say in private amongst themselves are two different things. Is it dishonest to bring that out? (Btw, being at the U of C and working amongst Democratic constituencies, I can attest to that first hand. Conservatives also may be guilty of the same, but no one complains when they are called on it, even when they are not guilty of it).
simply explained one side of evolution, but not the other.
You seem to know a lot about a movie you say you haven't seen. Did you read the transcript?
What "other side" didn't it explain. I'll give you that theist evolutionists were underrepresented.
Yes, there are evolutionists that will show you how altruism evolved. I don't see how "you saw evolutionists" grapple with the issue. Are you a scientist of some sort?
No. But I took evolutionary biology at one of the leading institutions (University of Chicago), my best friend there was agnostic/leaning atheist paleontology major (who inadvertently pushed me into Orthodoxy, may God reward him). I've worked 6 years in the med/psych field, and 8 years teaching (history, Arabic), at college, high school and elementary levels. So I know a thing or two about being PC.
Most of the writing on this topic I admit I see through the lens of E.O. Wilson of "On Human Nature" fame. Could be worse. Around 2000 there was a sociobiologist who was saying that rape shouldn't be a crime because it is programmed in the genes. That's the problem when you deconstruct free will: all things are possible.
Did you read journal articles?
Yes. Peer reviewed.
Have you experienced a committee that had heavy debates.
How did you "see" this exactly?
Originally, I came to the U of C a theist evolutionist. Taking it, I could and can notice a proganda program when I see it. The two biggest nails in the coffin were speciation and the "fossil record" of human evolution.
I recommend two books for you, both by Christian scientists. Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" and Francis Collins "The Language of God," and I think they're brilliant and to the point in addressing not only objections to evolution, but also objections to theism from people like Dawkins. These are where the HONEST attacks lie.
Still quetioning Mr. Stein's honesty for a movie you haven't seen. In shaa' al-Rabb I'll take a look at your recommendations, in particular as I'm taking my sons to the Field Museum's evolution exhibit again this week.
Not Ben Stein's Law School tactics. And just to be a nitpick:
Just to nitpick, what "Law School tactics" are you talking about in a film you haven't seen? If I didn't know that Ben was a lawyer (yes, I knew that before), you couldn't tell it from the movie. It struck me more like journalism and college professors.
I never trust a lawyer's word on anything, including the law. In fact, especially the law.
Then you don't trust the documentary to begin with. Ben Stein's specialty is Law.
Mr. Stein has quite a few specialties, not a common feat for lawyers. But even lawyers can make a valid argument, they just have to be evaluated separately from their "qualificitions" as a lawyer, you know, knowing what the definition of "is" "is."
He takes a position, and sticks with it without regard to objectivity.
That the evolutionists hang themselves and their theist cohorts in the movie doesn't effect Ben's objectivity at all. Sure, he takes a position. So does Michael Moore. But unlike the latter's doctoredmentaries, he connects the dots. The only valid objection could be that more arguement could be given to those who expelled the expelled on why they expelled them. But since he gives them time to do so (most refused it), and one flatly contradicted their own written statements of the matter, and another was up front, I'm not sure an objection is valid. The theist evolutionist could have been given their time, though.
I wouldn't go as far as saying I don't trust lawyers on "anything, including the law." But using Law School tactics on science is not valid. One can easily come up with the refutations.
Then why don't they, instead of shutting down discussion?