expelledexposed.com wrote:The movie sets up an unnecessary dichotomy between science and religion...
New Scientist wrote:"The film manipulates by appealing to raw emotion"
PluggedInOnline wrote:"I have always assumed that scientists were free to ask any question, to pursue any line of inquiry, without fear of reprisal," Stein tells moviegoers. "But recently I have been alarmed to discover that this is not the case." He asks, "Darwin challenged the consensus view, and that's how we got Darwinism. If Darwin wanted to challenge the consensus today, how would he do it?"
John Stuart Mill "On Liberty" wrote:The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race]John Stuart Mill wrote:He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.
Scientific American wrote:Ben Stein and the rest of the filmmakers sincerely and seriously argue that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution paved the way for the Holocaust. By "seriously," I mean that Ben Stein acts grief-stricken and the director juxtaposes quotes from evolutionary biologists with archival newsreel clips from Hitler's Reich.
Expelled Exposed wrote:THE highly controversial documentary Expelled: No intelligence allowed, is full of surprises, not least of which are endless clips of Nazis from the second world war.
Kkun wrote:I'm curious to hear his line of reasoning from Darwinism to Hitler.
Doubleshadow wrote:I think the Nazi's censoring of opposing viewpoints is an accurate comparison.
Kkun (post: 1217715) wrote:I'm curious to hear his line of reasoning from Darwinism to Hitler.
Nate (post: 1217747) wrote:If he wanted to make a comparison between this and censoring speech, why not use China as an example? Why not Finland? Why not Australia or the UK? I'll tell you why. Because his comparison to the Nazis is an appeal to emotion. Almost everybody hates the Nazis, that's why it's so popular to bring up Nazis in online discussions, because you can accuse your opponent of being like them and hey, maybe people will side with you more!
Nate (post: 1217747) wrote:At the risk of Godwinning this thread, I have to respond to this.
ich1990 wrote:From my five years in college, this certainly seems the case. If evolution is true, open discussion can't hurt, can it? Yet I have had many teachers that have made desparaging remarks about those who even think about disagreeing with evolution. Certainly even scientists can see this as a disturbing trend?
Nate wrote:But that's the problem. Appeal to emotion is NOT a valid argument, it is a logical fallacy, and that's why anybody who uses it automatically loses. Comparison to Nazis is never EVER valid unless it involves the slaughter of Jews and gypsies and homosexuals, which last I checked, the theory of evolution doesn't do.
Technomancer (post: 1217781) wrote:There are those who say that schools and universities should allow for discussion of "alternate points of view" Why? To pretend that the scientific theory of evolution and ID are on anything like an equal footing, or that there is some kind of scientific controversy on the subject does a gross disservice to students. For class in which teaching hours are limited there is little need to present "both sides" when one of those sides is wrong. Should scientists also be assailed for excluding alchemy and phrenology as well? Should the academy be open to all points of view regardless of how thoroughly discredited they are?
Because the lack of dialogue and free flow of information and ideas is damaging. Students should be able to decide for themselves whether or not a commonly accepted interpretation of information is accurate, acceptable, or even believable. Forcing them to accept another's interpretation, even that of an expert, without considering it for themselves with information and arguments from both sides does not help students to learn.
Doubleshadow (post: 1217805) wrote:Because the lack of dialogue and free flow of information and ideas is damaging. Students should be able to decide for themselves whether or not a commonly accepted interpretation of information is accurate, acceptable, or even believable.
Those fields were only discredited through doubtful inquiry exploring all ways of interpreting observations and the realization that a rational interpretation of data from experiments only made sense if these ideas were rejected.
Kkun (post: 1217715) wrote:I'm curious to hear his line of reasoning from Darwinism to Hitler.
uc pseudonym wrote:That's not to say that some people aren't stubborn and aggressive, and that may very well be the case with the professors you speak about. But I sincerely doubt they're just close-minded and trying to stifle debate.
I like Ben Stein's voice.
Technomancer (post: 1217861) wrote:The problem is, that scientists won't tell you that (at least not the Christianity/Atheism part). They as a whole know full well what the limitations of science are.
Technomancer wrote: From the evidence, this is so. However, the answer of your teachers is far from satisfactory. Given their respective disciplines, it may be that they have simply taken what the scientists say on faith and given it no further thought. This is understanable if not entirely laudable. After all it is the biologists who've spent their lives studying the subject, and not the art history professors.
Technomancer wrote: True, but perhaps you should seek out your answers from the scientists then. There are many clear and well-written discussions on evolutionary theory and its history.
Technomancer wrote: The problem is, that in the case you cite, there are clear examples of natural and artificial signals. We know they are artificial or natural because we can observed their production. In biology, you have no such examples, nor does ID even attempt to define or predict in any clear and consistent way what the characteristics of a natural vs. artificial organism should be. Instead, all it does is say "Gosh that's complicated!" and end there. This is not the way towards progress.
Technomancer wrote: And if the astronomers stopped there, they would be wrong. Consider the discovery of LGM-1 and LGM-2.
Technomancer wrote: That's not what they say.
Technomancer wrote: No, it doesn't. Not in the math and certainly not in the fossil record. The mathematics may sound authoritative to philosophy students, but it cuts no ice with any one seriously familiar with the subject.
Technomancer wrote:Again, this is simply false. Nowhere does ID have any sort of academic support. Not among mathematicians, nor computer scientists, and certainly not among astronomers or archaeologists.
Technomancer wrote:Your research has been lamentably incomplete then. The evolution of nylon eating bacteria is but one famous example, but one can also include the evolution of drug-resistance in other bacteria, of lactase retention in humans (and the sickle-cell trait) and so on.
I oppose censorship wherever it may pop up. And yes, this includes and is not limited to the United States and Canada.Nate (post: 1217747) wrote:No, no, no, no, no, a thousand frickin' times no.
At the risk of Godwinning this thread, I have to respond to this.
If he wanted to make a comparison between this and censoring speech, why not use China as an example? Why not Finland? Why not Australia or the UK? I'll tell you why. Because his comparison to the Nazis is an appeal to emotion. Almost everybody hates the Nazis, that's why it's so popular to bring up Nazis in online discussions, because you can accuse your opponent of being like them and hey, maybe people will side with you more!
ich1990 (post: 1217886) wrote:it seems that all of them are cases of micro-evolution rather than macro-evoution.
Technomancer (post: 1217781) wrote:There are those who say that schools and universities should allow for discussion of "alternate points of view" Why? To pretend that the scientific theory of evolution and ID are on anything like an equal footing, or that there is some kind of scientific controversy on the subject does a gross disservice to students. For class in which teaching hours are limited there is little need to present "both sides" when one of those sides is wrong. Should scientists also be assailed for excluding alchemy and phrenology as well? Should the academy be open to all points of view regardless of how thoroughly discredited they are?
Fish and Chips wrote:...People. All Darwin's theory of evolution discusses is variation in species. There is no "Micro" or "Macro" evolution, just the alteration of inherited characteristics over time. The end. Evolution does not say that we were all spawned from fish that wanted beach front property, nor does evolution say life as we know it is accidental and purely random. These are completely different theories. Stop diluting evolution by throwing them all into the same melting pot.
Return to General Entertainment
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 384 guests