Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 121 of 438 (463536)
04-17-2008 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by 1071
04-17-2008 7:06 PM


Re: my opinion
It is also exposing the ties from Darwin to euthanasia, abortion, eugenics, racism and the Holocaust.
That's all you have? An appeal to consequence?
antiLIE, perhaps you should think a bit on the difference between a scientific model and moral instruction. Observation of the natural world does not lead to morality. Or do you seriously suggest we should take moral lessons from the Theory of Gravity, as well? Morality is an entirely subjective, human invention and is independent of nature.
The "evolution=eugenics" argument is old hat. There are people who try to use scientific principles like evolution to justify their racism and bigotry...much like the people who use religion to do the same. Hell, science has shown us in the years since WW2 that the genetic difference between the races are so tiny as to be negligible - Hitler's racial extermination programs don't even make sense from the very perspective of a eugenicist (not that there are many of those around nowadays, thankfully).
Mein Kampf, by the way, contains a very large amount of Christian rhetoric borrowed directly from the mouth of Martin Luther himself.
So let's be honest: evolution is a biological principle. It has nothing to do with how society should treat its members. The actions of Hitler had nothing to do with whether or not the scientific model that is the Theory of Evolution accurately models the history of life on Earth.
Your argument (and the part of Expelled that features Hitler) is nothing more than an ill-informed smokescreen, an appeal to the emotions of the uneducated masses who hear the name "Hitler" and disengage their brains.
And this from a person who calls himself "antiLIE?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by 1071, posted 04-17-2008 7:06 PM 1071 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Brad McFall, posted 04-18-2008 4:49 PM Rahvin has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 122 of 438 (463546)
04-18-2008 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by 1071
04-17-2008 7:06 PM


Joining in the pile-on
The modern media militia considers Creationism as a "faith-without-facts warhorse"...They are very good at tearing down their enemies and lifting them selves up with their credentials, making a name for themselves so they can have authority.
You realize that Premise Media is in fact, a media company right? One whose open goal is to 'tear down their enemies' whilst lifting themselves up with their credentials? Did you know that Ben Stein wrote speeches for Nixon? Did you know he was part of the intelligentsia? If you didn't before, in the wake of this film you do now!
. It is also exposing the ties from Darwin to euthanasia, abortion, eugenics, racism and the Holocaust
Of course, you'll find very few historical documents where you'll see the actual people who do the killing getting convinced it is the correct thing to do because of Darwin. You'll find rants about Marxism of the Jews, Communist Jews, secret Jewish Capitalist conspiriacies, economic leechery, the high population density of Germany versus the low population density of other places in Europe, you'll see that Jews drink their children's blood and commit vile crimes against German women and children (the vilest crimes humanity has ever conceived, no less), you'll see rhetoric accusing the Jews of being a race of liars perpetuating the Big Lie, you'll see stuff about Jews seeking only to gain more money or power at the expense of German moral and spiritual goodness, you'll see insane prophecies of the Fuhrer, you'll have no problem finding justification in God's command, I'm sure you'll see such wonders as appealing to the vengeance-based debasement that is the Old Testament without the New.
He claimed that the Aryan race was God's Favored race and every one else was "sub-human".
Yes, it's one of the oldest justifications for genocide stretching back thousands of years before Darwin was born. Jews were the unfortunate victims of many of these genocidal pogroms. The Israelites, quite literally, wrote the book on theological justifications for genocide.
Evolutionists will always try to make Hitler out to be this Christian Killing in the name of God.
No, he was an opportunist that cynically manipulated anything from Wagner to Darwin to Luther to the Roman Catholic Church in an attempt to appeal to as many people as possible in one of the most successful propaganda efforts humanity has ever suffered under.
Anybody who thinks the Nazi's rise to power, and the subsequent horrors, can all be pinned on one single causal source is a fool.
But let's not speculate, lets see what Hitler says
Yes, lets. You quote from a section of Mein Kampf where Hitler is talking about how ideas spread (cultural evolution). He says that a nationalist autocrat should be allowed to rise to power because he is selected by Destiny to do so (and the Volk should clear the path to allow the strong personality to flourish). After all, this is survival of the fittest. However, he shows his cloudy thinking as he talks of Marxist Jewry. Apparently, even if Marxism is successful that doesn't mean it is a good thing, because it can't be successful in the right ways.
You won't find any reason in Darwin's works to prefer a dictatorship fo National Socialism to Marxism. Studying nature has shown us that there are many ways of legitimately running a social group.
So how does Hitler get from cultural/political evolution to being able to determine which political system is 'best'? Why, common lore, folk wisdom, common sense of course! Why, everybody knows that of race is a factor in personal worth!
Anyway, the entire chapter is like that, it's a political argument against Marxism - which (when convenient), Hitler ascribes to Jews.
He accused the Jews of bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the purpose of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization." From everything I can find on this topic, it leads to Hitler using a mix of Evolutionary thought with his neo-christian views as political weapons.
He's not using evolutionary thought when he says
quote:
With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink back from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large scale. It was and it is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from its cultural and political height, and himself rising to be its master.
That's just straight up racism. The concern for the 'home race' is a common thread throughout history. As I mentioned earlier, the Israelites where very concerned about their neighbours 'bastardizing' them so that they would lose their racial identity. White people today who are definitely not pro-evolution use this argument about the Mexicans, the Poles, the Arabs and any number of other races that might be immigrating into the area.
Any 'documentary' that simply points to let's say, a particular branch of science, as not being manipulated and misused, but applied in a logical fashion to lead to the murder of millions, is being deliberately misleading.
Indeed, it is propaganda that Hitler would be proud of. Instead of piling up the evils of the world on one thing, the Jews, Expelled seeks to pile up the evils of the world on one thing, Darwinists.
It makes references to communism and Nazism, Hitler made references to Marxism and destructive economic greed. Hitler references global Jewish conspiracies, Expelled has global Darwinist conspiracies.
Expelled tries to follow Hitler's rules for good propaganda:
quote:
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
But in the wrong hands it becomes a weapon. The exact same can be said for neo-christianity, islam, and any religion.
Yes, all ideas are weapons in the wrong hands. If this documentary was about how good ideas can be perverted by powerful lunatics, it would have been interesting. Instead it uses cheap tactics of saying things like, "I found out that Darwinism could be dangerous" (Cue pictures of Nazi Germany).
Darwinism isn't dangerous - charismatic mass-murderers are dangerous.

Did Premise Media, Ben Stein, Mark Mathis et al intentionally decide to release Expelled at the box office on the weekend of Hitler's 119th Birthday? What about the fact that the 18th is made of two digits...1=A and 8=H AH=A.Hitler.
Probably not, but stupid conspiracy theories are easy to make up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by 1071, posted 04-17-2008 7:06 PM 1071 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by 1071, posted 04-18-2008 7:17 AM Modulous has not replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 123 of 438 (463551)
04-18-2008 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Blue Jay
04-17-2008 10:41 PM


Re: my opinion
BlueJay writes:
So, antiLIE, how would you feel if evolutionists put out a movie "exposing the ties from" Jesus to genocide, Inquisition and Salem witch trials? I think it's only fair that the public be made aware of this assault the very ethical and moral fabric of our society.
Actually that would be a great documentary. The neo-christian dogma is in my opinion just as dangerous as evolution doctrine. All weapons in the hand of a powerful Creator.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071
[ IIX:XXIV] ‘ ‘

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Blue Jay, posted 04-17-2008 10:41 PM Blue Jay has not replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 124 of 438 (463553)
04-18-2008 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Blue Jay
04-17-2008 10:41 PM


Re: my opinion
BlueJay writes:
But, wait: do you actually see evolutionists doing this--making movies and setting up political campaigns to attack creationism? No: we generally stick to our laboratories and work on improving our theories. Most evolutionary biologists don't even interact with creationists. Why? Because we're not the aggressors in this conflict. Remember that next time you spout paranoid nonsense.
well, You do not speak for all evolutionist. I indeed have experienced many evolutionists who defend their religion by attacking with debasement. I have seen many professors assume they have authority in the issue because of their credentials. However on the other end I will say that I should not assume that all Evolutionists are that way.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071
[ IIX:XXIV] ‘ ‘

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Blue Jay, posted 04-17-2008 10:41 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 3:52 PM 1071 has replied

1071
Member (Idle past 5812 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 125 of 438 (463555)
04-18-2008 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Modulous
04-18-2008 4:03 AM


Re: Joining in the pile-on
First I want to thank you for the reply.. I like good long analysis of my posts.. I do the same... I actually agree with the Hitler comments you made, I in fact went back and re read the Mein Kampf chapter I had mentioned.. I do see your point on that and should not have used it as an example.
Modulous writes:
Anybody who thinks the Nazi's rise to power, and the subsequent horrors, can all be pinned on one single causal source is a fool
I agree. That is what I am saying in my post, that Hitler wasn't JUST using biological evolution as an excuse, but also neo-christianity and politics.

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071
[ IIX:XXIV] ‘ ‘

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Modulous, posted 04-18-2008 4:03 AM Modulous has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 126 of 438 (463564)
04-18-2008 10:01 AM


Ir looka likw Yoko Ono is caught in the Expelled movie. They used a John Lennon song without permission
Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap - WSJ

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Modulous, posted 04-18-2008 10:31 AM ramoss has not replied
 Message 128 by Granny Magda, posted 04-18-2008 1:10 PM ramoss has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 127 of 438 (463569)
04-18-2008 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by ramoss
04-18-2008 10:01 AM


Ir looka likw Yoko Ono
Ir looka likw your dinfwea qwew on rhw qeonf kwya!
antiLIE writes:
I actually agree with the Hitler comments you made, I in fact went back and re read the Mein Kampf chapter I had mentioned.. I do see your point on that and should not have used it as an example.
Can't ask for a more cordial response. Welcome to EvC, I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot of each other!
That is what I am saying in my post, that Hitler wasn't JUST using biological evolution as an excuse, but also neo-christianity and politics.
You are quite right that this was your overall thesis, and I had seen that and didn't want to imply that you were ignorant of it. I was trying to show that Expelled wasn't torn down because of the evil Jewish Financiers Darwinist anti-God League. It was criticised because it takes a complex issue like the holocaust and implies that Darwin's work was necessary for it to have taken place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ramoss, posted 04-18-2008 10:01 AM ramoss has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 128 of 438 (463579)
04-18-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ramoss
04-18-2008 10:01 AM


Thanks for the story ramoss, but the link you provide only leads to the first few paragraphs of the article (at least, that's what I got), so here is the full version.
Page not found | Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Apparently The Killers have licensed "All These Things That I've Done" for use in the film, but this doesn't really bother me too much, because The Killers are shite.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ramoss, posted 04-18-2008 10:01 AM ramoss has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 129 of 438 (463585)
04-18-2008 3:38 PM


Eugenics was definitely influenced by Darwinism and played a significant role in Hitler and NAZI thinking. To deny this is silly.
Now, to argue that the NAZIs misused evo doctrine is acceptable, just as to argue Catholics misused biblical teaching. The only difference I can see is the Bible unequivocally condemns the persecutorial approach of medieval Roman Catholicism whereas there is not, imo, the same inconsistency between Darwinism's amoral approach and statist eugenics. That doesn't mean Darwinists approve of their ideas being used for genocide, of course. It just means there is a consistency between the amoral approaches to truth.

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 4:07 PM randman has replied
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2008 3:12 PM randman has not replied
 Message 163 by Deftil, posted 04-23-2008 5:57 PM randman has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 130 of 438 (463587)
04-18-2008 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by 1071
04-18-2008 6:46 AM


Re: my opinion
antiLIE writes:
The neo-christian dogma is in my opinion just as dangerous as evolution doctrine.
First, I apologize for misinterpreting your remarks. Second, I'm now officially confused about where you stand in this debate: you call yourself antiLIE, but it seems you're more of an antiEVERYBODY.
antiLIE writes:
I indeed have experienced many evolutionists who defend their religion by attacking with debasement.
Well, I guess I can't argue with this either. However, you have to acknowledge that evolutionary biology isn't an anti-creationist political campaign: it's science, generally forwarded by people working quietly in their laboratories on specific problems that help refine an overall knowledge base, not organized under a specific banner or united in a single cause. ID/creationism, on the other hand, has shown itself (particularly with this movie and other stunts like it) to be nothing more than an evolution hate group with a minor component of pretended science.
antiLIE writes:
I have seen many professors assume they have authority in the issue because of their credentials.
Are you suggesting that people with suitable credentials do not have authority? If a certain man (we'll call him Dr X) was trained in geology, and has spent his career of twenty years studying mineral deposition and radiometric dating techniques, why should he not be considered authoritative on the ages and processes of rock strata?

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by 1071, posted 04-18-2008 6:46 AM 1071 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by 1071, posted 04-19-2008 8:29 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 131 of 438 (463591)
04-18-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by randman
04-18-2008 3:38 PM


randman writes:
...the Bible unequivocally condemns the persecutorial approach of medieval Roman Catholicism...
What did God order to be done with Achan when he took some of the loot of Jericho? What about all the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites that were killed by the Israelites because they didn't want Joshua to walk through their land?
You'll have to forgive me if I don't see anything "inequivocal" about how God condemns persecution.
randman writes:
..there is not, imo, the same inconsistency between Darwinism's amoral approach and statist eugenics.
Well, imo, there is. Keep in mind that there is a difference between amoral and immoral: we don't consider it okay or justifiable to kill, harm or persecute just because we believe in natural selection. No natural selectionist would blink an eye at a mantis killing a grasshopper for food, but most would become quite suspicious if the mantis just went around killing grasshoppers that wouldn't participate in a jumping contest it was trying to put on.
Surely you can see the difference between natural selection and artificial selection. One is an amoral process in which all things compete, and some don't make it; the other is an immoral process in which some things are allowed to compete, and some things are denied.

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 3:38 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 7:22 PM Blue Jay has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 132 of 438 (463598)
04-18-2008 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Rahvin
04-17-2008 11:21 PM


Re: my opinion of Ben
Ben Stein was just (4 mins ago) interviewed on FLN(Family Life (Radio) Network) in UpState NY and either he is reading EvC or what he is doing promotionally is as bad as the worst of creation/evolution sites (for which EvC IS the antiDop/te).
Ben just said that Darwinism did not explain gravity!!
Duh! I can not talk with such a person at all. He implied that it should do so or try to do so. He throws the cultural net further than YECs do. AntiLIE was not this bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Rahvin, posted 04-17-2008 11:21 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by bluescat48, posted 04-18-2008 5:34 PM Brad McFall has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 133 of 438 (463604)
04-18-2008 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Brad McFall
04-18-2008 4:49 PM


Re: my opinion of Ben
Ben Stein was just (4 mins ago) interviewed on FLN(Family Life (Radio) Network) in UpState NY and either he is reading EvC or what he is doing promotionally is as bad as the worst of creation/evolution sites (for which EvC IS the antiDop/te).
Ben just said that Darwinism did not explain gravity!!
Duh! I can not talk with such a person at all. He implied that it should do so or try to do so. He throws the cultural net further than YECs do. AntiLIE was not this bad.
Is he for real or is he just trying to go out of his way to be the most sarcastic person alive. What the (expletive deleted) has darwin got to do with gravity.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Brad McFall, posted 04-18-2008 4:49 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Brad McFall, posted 04-18-2008 6:57 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 134 of 438 (463611)
04-18-2008 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by bluescat48
04-18-2008 5:34 PM


Re: my opinion of Ben
I dont know. THAT was how he started out. It was hard for me to take him seriously at all after that and I am probably one of the most open listeners there are. It is possible that there was some kind of audio edit I did not notice but it did not appear that way.
George Williams made the difference of gravity and adaptation under selection clear in 1966 when he wrote
quote:
For an example that I assume will not be controversial, consider a flying fish that has just left the water to undertake an aerial flight. It is clear that there is a physiological necessity for it to return to the water very soon; it cannot long survive in air. It is, moreover, a matter of common observation that an aerial glide normally terminates with a return to the sea. Is this the result of a mechanism for getting he fish back into water? Certainly not; we need not invoke the principle of adaptation here. The purely physical principle of gravitaton adequately explains why the fish, having gone up, eventually comes down....problem is not how it manages to come down, but why it takes so long to do so...Here we would be dealing with adaptation.Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought Princeton Univ Press page 10
If Mr. Stein wants to make some kind of realistic critique then he should not have strayed out this far, from the start in 66, where Williams wrote, at first,
quote:
Many of the contributions to evolutionary thought in the past century can be put in one of two opposed groups. One group emphasizes natural selection as the primary or exclusive creative force. The other minimizes the role of selection in relation to other proposed factors.
It would take some effort to give ID an airing from this start but THAT at least offers something useful (here the scholarship requires one to finish the ongoing discussion of the "alternatives" to Darwinism as Kellog had them etc...).
Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling and other touches.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by bluescat48, posted 04-18-2008 5:34 PM bluescat48 has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 135 of 438 (463616)
04-18-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Blue Jay
04-18-2008 4:07 PM


What did God order to be done with Achan when he took some of the loot of Jericho? What about all the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites that were killed by the Israelites because they didn't want Joshua to walk through their land?
You'll have to forgive me if I don't see anything "inequivocal" about how God condemns persecution.
Have you read the gospels and the New Testament?
On your comment on amorality vs immorality, my point on amorality is that there are no absolute morals for Darwinism. Absent of God, man makes up his own morals as he sees fit, and if he thinks it's fit to artificially select humanity's progress, who is to say he is wrong?
How can you say genocide is wrong per se even? Sure, you can say you find it personally despicable and so wrong according to your morals, but who says your morals are right anyway?
I don't think it takes a genius to see how the Nazis drew inspiration from Darwinism.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 4:07 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 11:44 PM randman has not replied
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2008 3:14 PM randman has not replied
 Message 152 by Rrhain, posted 04-19-2008 9:04 PM randman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024