It is also exposing the ties from Darwin to euthanasia, abortion, eugenics, racism and the Holocaust.
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.
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 like the following:
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.
This Documentary is attacked from every angle you can imagine because it is uncovering the prejudice of the secular humanist academia.
The naturalists will continue their intellectually vacuous debasement of super- naturalists to lift themselves up.
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. ;)
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.
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?
...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.
..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 Christian, too, Rand! I can quote half of it by memory! (Maybe that's an exaggeration :o).
Have you ever read the Old Testament, which was purportedly written by the same God as the New Testament? It doesn't teach the same message of kindness, compassion, forgiveness, not-genocide and not-war, does it? In fact, it very directly supports racial/ethnic persecution, not-forgiveness, vengeance and genocide. How is taking two completely opposite sides in the same volume of scripture not equivocal?
Absent of God, man makes up his own morals as he sees fit...
I think it us very clear that, even in the presence of God, man makes up his own morals as he sees fit. How can we say for certain that the Christian morals we believe in are not just another of those morals made up by man? In attributing our particular morals to God, we effectively say, "we're right, and all you other people are wrong," which is generally what starts the conflicts.
How can you say genocide is wrong per se even?
I guess I can't, Rand.
I don't think it takes a genius to see how the Nazis drew inspiration from Darwinism.
What was Joshua's inspiration? It wasn't Darwin. How about the slave-traders in the 1700's and 1800's? It wasn't Darwin.
Linking something bad to some interpretation of a certain principle or concept does not make that principle/concept bad. No one's arguing that Nazism didn't use some Darwinist materials: they're arguing that it's not Darwin's (or science's) fault that they did. Expelled seems to think that it is all Darwin's and science's fault that we had Nazis, and that if science had been dominated by IDists, it would not have happened.
I think all the racial/ethnic/social/religious persecution before Darwin's time, and in places without Christianity--and, for that matter, everywhere and everywhen since humans first appeared on this hellhole planet--is clear evidence that people are going to find a reason to kill, persecute and otherwise lasciviate, no matter what they have to use as rationalization. And we Christians have shown that we're nothing special in this regard.
Just read all the intrigue and controversy about Expelled and you'll see exactly what I mean: they weren't particularly scrupulous about what they did, either.