This is something every theist should see and promote. Also check out the movie website here.
Filed under Apologetics, Atheism/Theism, Culture Wars, Current Events, Meaning of Life, morality, Politics, Religion, Respect, Science, Supernatural, Theism
Tagged as Academic Freedom, Academic Intimidation, Apologetics, Ben Stein, Creation, Darwin, Evidences, Evolution, Free Speech, God, Movies, Science, Theism
After all, there really is a war between science and religion.
Excellent post brother.
And we certainly wouldn’t want science to keep us from going back to the “Dark Ages”.
It is interesting. Atheists are always pointing to the Roman Catholic suppression of certain scientific discoveries and saying, “See? I told you religion retards science!”
Now we have a situation in which certain institutions and schools of thought are suppressing alternative views…not by debunking them (you can’t debunk what’s true)…but by “killing the messenger.” If this keeps up, Dark Ages indeed!
“suppressing alternative views”
But this statement is a lie. They have books, articles, blogs. How can they be suppressed? But if they don’t do real science, they won’t be granted tenure. And if they sneak a nonsense article into a supposedly peer-reviewed journal, they will be criticized for that.
I am amazed that it’s taken someone this long to expose this blockage to freedom of speach in the schools. Both views should be presented although their is more proof to support intelligent design (God). Thanks for having the courage to stand up to political correctness.
Will Jacksonville, Florida be showing this movie?
So far, we have freedom of speech in the blogosphere…thank God. So, of course, blogs and books are not under question. See the movie to find out what freedom “they” have to express their views.
By the way, who is the arbiter of what is “true science?” You? Could you bless me with a definition of “true science?”
Listen to the scientists.
“Both views should be presented although there is more proof to support intelligent design (God).”
Of course both views should be presented in a university philosophy class to compare science against religion.
But the Dover School Board paid $1 million to find out that creationism cannot be presented in a high school biology class. That silly “separation of church and state” interpretation of the First Amendment keeps getting applied to religious nonsense.
“Could you bless me with a definition of “true science?””
I don’t think you could handle it. “True science” just doesn’t allow any room for supernatural entities, miracles, ghosts, goblins, poltergeists, or omnipotent gods. It keeps requiring “evidence”, “predictions”, “falsifiability”, and other such sciency things. Just not much wiggle room there.
Again, we see a demonstration of the arrogance and elitism so many atheists exhibit. We theists are considered to ignorant to “handle” a definition of true science. So instead we are told what it does not include. As far as I know, no theistic scientist I know of includes the supernatural in their pursuit of their objectives. They are, however, sometimes led to conclusions that include the supernatural: Francis Collins is a good example.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive except in the closed minds of the prejudiced be they believers in God or in Scientism.
True science must address the issue of origins in a rationale way and give up its blind faith-based doctrine that all the fine-tuned precision and order that we observe in the creation (terrestrial and celestial) is an infinitely complex mass accident. Supernatural reality (unseen intelligences) and visible reality (the natural world and everything in it) are inseparably linked.
Saw the movie twice last week. The first, because I wanted to see it before I recommended it. The second time, because another couple wanted my wife and I to go with them. It was excellent. Don’t go expecting much of the debate itself but rather that there should be a debate allowed in the classroom.
The story is a little more complicated (much like a michael moore film).
First, ID isnt a scientific theory. Here’s the founder of the ID movement, Philip Johnson, saying exactly that last year.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
The ID movement has been pursuing this “wedge” strategy to get ID into the mainstream for the past 15 years or so. They recently suffered a major setback when some christian school board members pushed forward a plan to include ID. The Discovery Institute (the ID HQ essentially) told them not to do it but being excited local christians they went ahead and lost. So in the interview Johnson concludes that ID is pretty much shut out of public schools for the forseeable future but that “they will take the fight elsewhere”.
So the elsewhere is pretty clear. Elsewhere is the University and Stein’s movie isnt the only indication of that.
Now, this isnt normally the way science works. You don’t hire public relations firms, write books for popular audiences and lobby politicians BEFORE you admittedly even have a scientific theory. So, its odd by most standards, which is not to say they shouldnt pursue it, its just odd.
They are certainly free to research whatever they like (the discovery institute gets millions in donations) but they seem focused less on research and more on public relations stunts.
Interview is here:http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles/issue10/evolution.pdf
They also have strikes against them for several reasons. For example the book they were fighting over in the public school case was originally a creationist book (which had been ruled unscientific) that was merely repackaged by going in and removing all references to creationism and replacing them with intelligent design or cdesign references, etc.
So ID may be worth studying but their methods certainly do raise the hairs on the necks of scientists.
“So instead we are told what it does not include.”
I also told you what it does include. And “intelligent design” is not science because it does not do the things that are required for it to be science.
“there should be a debate allowed in the classroom”
Riiight. Let’s debate Religion versus Science. After all, there has never been a debate like this in the last week, month, year, decade, century, millennium. Oh, there was? I missed it? What did it resolve, this debate? Which side was Wm F Buckley on? Well, let’s have this debate in a high school science classroom because that way we will get really informed opinions on both sides. No, I know – let’s make a “documentary” describing how this “debate” has not and will not ever occur. And how “God did it” is sooo helpful in choosing the next scientific research project to be funded. No? The movie did not actually explain what “intelligent design” really means?
What does intelligent design mean? Well, I think it means design that seems to be of intelligent origin instead of the result of billions of years of cosmic accidents, some of which turned out to be beneficial. Raymond Obomsawin made an excellent observation in a previous comment.
Intelligent design doesn’t “do” anything. It is not a scientific method. It is a conclusion some scientists have reached. Come on…do a little investigation before passing judgment.
“It is not a scientific method.”
Note that they want state legislatures to pass laws specifically allowing the criticisms of the Theory of Evolution to be taught in high school science classrooms. Obviously if the Theory of Evolution is not perfect in the eyes of the creationists, then “intelligent design” must be the correct answer. LOL
“They” doesn’t include me. I want the legislature or anyone else except the school administration to keep their hands off.
Controversy occurs when the facts resulting from scientific discoveries are interpreted to mean anything more than what they are. This is fodder for discussion but only as opinion. Present the facts, talk about the interpretations and let students make up their own minds.
I don’t want anyone dictating what I or my children can or cannot believe.
Creationists wants to do an end run around the science involved in testing theory.
My big question here is this.If Creationists had their way..would they accept the nameless,faceless diety?Would they welcome the creation stories of all religions..Hindu,Wiccan,Judeo-Christian,etc ,into the discussion?(A discussion taking place in a science class??!?!)
If design is so intelligent,especially early life.Why was it so fraught with mistakes?Billions of species that went no where.Such imperfect creations in all species?
We think so much of ourselves.Because our minds perceive something as “complex” it cannot have been chance.
Mathematics,with all it’s laws and complexity,starts in our minds as the basic concept of zero and one.
“I want the legislature or anyone else except the school administration to keep their hands off.”
Ok. Florida passed bills in both House and Senate by large margins to enable “teach the controversy” and then refused to compromise the bills – so neither bill was sent to Jeb. Louisiana is next. Three other states in the works. And Expelled is promoting these bills.
And the “school administration” at Dover paid $1 million to find out that they should have kept their hands off of a high school biology class.
“Present the facts, talk about the interpretations and let students make up their own minds.”
Ok. But not in high school. Biology is a 9th grade subject and neither 9th grade students nor teachers have the time or background to know the actual “facts” in a situation like this. So, yes, in a university philosophy class. So the students come to a better understanding of the difference between science and religion.
As I said in my blog, Why There Are No Expelled and Ben Stein Bootlegs at http://millenniumwriting.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/why-there-are-no-expelled-and-ben-stein-bootlegs/, you can measure the quality and success of a movie by the number of bootlegs copies on the street. There aren’t none for Expelled.
Erik John Bertel
Author of Flores Girl The Children God Forgot and the Millenniumwriting blog
Just because something is proposed as a theory doesn’t mean that it needs to be taken seriously. You could just as easily purpose that the Universe was sneezed out by a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a viable alternative. Moreover, Intelligent Design or Creationism (because they are the same things) have been thoroughly tested using just about every scientific method that we have, and each published account (in a peer reviewed journal or similar) has laughed it off.
Point being, it was tested and it failed. Time to stop beating that dead horse.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and get the latest dirt on Charamon Garden.
Join 1,272 other followers