Expelled

by Eliveleth 15 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Gopher

  Ah, the creationists are crying foul. They can't stand criticism of their position, so they produce blarney like this film and like the so-called Creation Museum in Kentucky. This movie is about a dispute among academics presented in a way to try to win pity from the American public.

  As noted in an earlier post above, this film blatantly misrepresents the definition of evolution and so misinforms the public and does a gross disservice to a truthful discussion. For a movie defending scientists who want to promote Intelligent Design, it even does its proponents a disservice by not even giving a complete definition of Intelligent Design.

  God does not belong in laboratories or in classrooms. If anywhere, God belongs in homes and churches. God is not provable or disprovable by scientific methods, and so belongs in the realm of philosophy or theology rather than science.

  Here's a critical analysis of this movie: http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3229
• 

  Dead Man Joaquin

  Maybe, but... what's so dangerous about pointing out possible holes in Darwinian evolutionary framework? Didn't Steven Jay Gould spend his entire life reworking the model because of its deficiencies? If I'm mistaken, please correct me.
• 

  Gopher

  Darwin fundies have their own agenda just like Biblical fundies.

  I don't agree, just based on definitions. The phrase "Darwin fundy" is an oxymoron. Here's the definition of fundamentalist: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. Beyond the obvious point that Darwinism is not religious, the scientists of today have so much more information than Darwin had, that they could hardly be characterized as "returning to his fundamental principles". Science has advanced much in the past century, so there really are few true "Darwin fundamentalists" any longer. Well, the burden of proof in the creationism - evolution debate is on the creationists, because belief in a God is an article of FAITH. To try to inject such belief into science is certainly strong proof of a creationist agenda. Do pro-evolutionary scientists have an agenda? If keeping God out of labratories and public schools is an agenda, then yes. Because "God" doesn't belong there. Some pro-evolutionary scientists believe in God, even many religionists accept evolution. But why God needs to be pushed into science is beyond me.
• 

  Dead Man Joaquin

  One thing's for sure... it's nice to actually be able to debate subjects like this... which you sure as hell can't do in Faithy Discreety McSlaveypants Land...
• 

  Gopher

  Maybe, but... what's so dangerous about pointing out possible holes in Darwinian evolutionary framework? Didn't Steven Jay Gould spend his entire life reworking the model because of its deficiencies? If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

  There should be no problem pointing out holes in evolutionary science. Good science is about the constant search for an accurate understanding of our world and universe. So if new understandings come forth, they should be reviewed, tested, and written into science textbooks. Intelligent Design offers nothing to the scientific search for an accurate understanding of our world and universe. It is fundamentalism, a return to philosophical ideas written in ancient books considered holy.
• 

  Gopher

  One thing's for sure... it's nice to actually be able to debate subjects like this... which you sure as hell can't do in Faithy Discreety McSlaveypants Land...

  and LOL at Faithy Discreety McSlaveypants.