My parents, Chris, and I saw Ben Stein's movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed this afternoon. This documentary exposes the unscientific methods of academia in calling evolution fact and burying its head in the ground whenever an opposing view (Intelligent Design) is presented.
Artisically put together, this entertaining and thought-provoking documentary related the two camps to the Berlin Wall, because there is "academic freedom" only if you are on the right side of the wall. What that means is that if one proposes anything other than the prevalent view, one is ostrasized, persecuted, and "expelled" from academia (fired and prevented from future hiring). A case of this recently happened at my alma mater, where one of the university's (and my) most beloved professors was not tenured.
Having studied Darwin at Cambridge for a study-abroad course, I was glad to see him address the fact that the logical conclusion of the theory of evolution is eugenics and genocide. Hitler and the Nazi party were not crazy. Their practices of exterminating what nature would "select" anyway in order to create the perfect race are the rational applications of the evolution mindset. That's how horribly sad/dangerous/unethical this theory can be.
The pinnacle of the movie was Stein's interview with Richard Dawkins, scientist and author of The God Delusion. Dawkins, a raging atheist who claims that anyone who believes in a God is an idiot showed himself to be a complete idiot when asked about the beginning of life. The Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection does not account for the first living cell, just somewhat what happens after that living cell somehow came into existance. Dawkins said that it is a possibility that alien lifeform designed this living cell and brought it to Earth. No, I am not kidding. He actually thinks that believing in aliens is scientific. WOW. And even worse, after raging against "intelligent design", he himself stated that some intelligent being may have designed this single-cell organism and put it on Earth. But that "intelligent designer" must have itself evolved through some sort of Darwinian process. Or else it must have been placed wherever it was by some other evolved intelligent designer, in perpetuity... With all due respect, Mr. Dawkins, I think you are the one under delusion.
I wrote my paper (for my Cambridge course) on how Darwin intended to make science arreligious (without religion) - because before him, science was intended to discover God's revelation through creation - but what he did instead was change the religion of science from a judeo-christian endeavor to a Nature-and-therefore-SELF-as-God religion. Dawkins, as Darwin was before him, is not an unbiased scientist, but a self-centered man angry with God, and he would rather believe anything else designed the world as long as it is not a Righteous Judge who holds us accountable for our actions.
**Note on how these men do not follow the scientific method.
1)Darwin threw out evidence against his theory (I saw some of it with my own eyes). This is against the scientific method, because if something does not fit the theory, then the theory should change to fit the evidence, not vice versa.
2) "Scientists" consider Evolution (def: that all known life evolved from one single-cell organism) FACT. Most of the evolution-upholding scientists in the documentary called it such. In the scientific method, there is no fact; one should always consider a theory as something that has just not been disproved YET.
3) No one has ever successfully duplicated evolution, just like no one has ever duplicated the beginning. Therefore, it is nothing but a weak theory, maybe just hypothesis.
See this movie. I give it 2 (opposing) thumbs up.
8 comments:
"My parents, Chris, and I saw Ben Stein's movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed this afternoon. This documentary exposes the unscientific methods of academia in calling evolution fact and burying its head in the ground whenever an opposing view (Intelligent Design) is presented."
Evolution is not a fact. It's a scientific theory. It's the best explanation for the evidence accumulated by scientists over the last 150 years. To say any scientist would "bury their head in the ground" when confronted with contradictory evidence or a more parsimonious explanation, is libelous. Scientists dream of discovering a new mechanism that would turn such a well known and supported theory, like evolution, on its head. Anyone who could, would surely win a Nobel Prize, among other accolades.
"Artisically put together, this entertaining and thought-provoking documentary related the two camps to the Berlin Wall, because there is "academic freedom" only if you are on the right side of the wall. What that means is that if one proposes anything other than the prevalent view, one is ostrasized, persecuted, and "expelled" from academia (fired and prevented from future hiring). A case of this recently happened at my alma mater, where one of the university's (and my) most beloved professors was not tenured. "
There is no "Berlin Wall" in science. Science is based on open inquiry and the evaluation of evidence. If ID is such a well-founded theory, please show me the research and evidence. I'd be glad (along with all other scientists) to alter my views on it. The problem is, there isn't any. Furthermore, I highly doubt any esteemed university, such as your alma mater, would deny a professor tenure for their religious beliefs or being an ID proponent (case in point, Michael Behe). More likely, it was a lack of research output or other more valid reason(s). Who is this professor and what do they research? If a university is discriminating against employees for their religious beliefs, that's poor form.
"Having studied Darwin at Cambridge for a study-abroad course, I was glad to see him address the fact that the logical conclusion of the theory of evolution is eugenics and genocide. Hitler and the Nazi party were not crazy. Their practices of exterminating what nature would "select" anyway in order to create the perfect race are the rational applications of the evolution mindset. That's how horribly sad/dangerous/unethical this theory can be."
First off, this paragraph is self-contradictory. How can eugenics emulate natural selection? Eugenics is artificial selection based on some arbitrary and unfounded notion of superiority. It's far from natural and very evil. Evolution does not say that some people are better than others, or, propose any "logical conclusions". It is not a philosophy, the same as gravity. It is simply the best explanation for the data. Anyone who would justify their actions by or base their philosophy of life on a scientific theory is a very stupid and laughable person. For the record, Hitler was a Catholic (read his memoirs if you don't believe me) and employed the antisemitism that had been rampant in Germany and Europe for centuries for his own vile and evil purposes. Much of this antisemitism stems from the teaching of the Catholic church and Martin Luther ("The Jews and Their Lies").
"The pinnacle of the movie was Stein's interview with Richard Dawkins, scientist and author of The God Delusion. Dawkins, a raging atheist who claims that anyone who believes in a God is an idiot showed himself to be a complete idiot when asked about the beginning of life. The Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection does not account for the first living cell, just somewhat what happens after that living cell somehow came into existance. Dawkins said that it is a possibility that alien lifeform designed this living cell and brought it to Earth. No, I am not kidding. He actually thinks that believing in aliens is scientific. WOW. And even worse, after raging against "intelligent design", he himself stated that some intelligent being may have designed this single-cell organism and put it on Earth. But that "intelligent designer" must have itself evolved through some sort of Darwinian process. Or else it must have been placed wherever it was by some other evolved intelligent designer, in perpetuity... With all due respect, Mr. Dawkins, I think you are the one under delusion."
You're right, evolution doesn't deal with how life arose on this planet. It simply explains the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. Dawkins is an atheist. So what? Francis Collins is a Christian and Ben Stein is a Jew. A person's religion has no bearing on their ability to collect and interpret data. Whether or not you agree with his stance on religion shouldn't be a mitigating factor when weighing his opinion. He called you an idiot, but you just compared my research to that of the Nazis. Get over it. I think his answer is quite appropriate given the question that was asked of him. Sure, aliens could have designed the cell and put it here. It's more scientific than it being supernaturally *poofed* here. His answer isn't substantiated, but it's the only reasonable and natural hypothesis for a designer that he could come up with given the loaded question. Science deals with the natural and observable, not the supernatural. I wouldn't call his answer delusional. I'd call it a decent given the subversive nature of the question.
"I wrote my paper (for my Cambridge course) on how Darwin intended to make science arreligious (without religion) - because before him, science was intended to discover God's revelation through creation - but what he did instead was change the religion of science from a judeo-christian endeavor to a Nature-and-therefore-SELF-as-God religion. Dawkins, as Darwin was before him, is not an unbiased scientist, but a self-centered man angry with God, and he would rather believe anything else designed the world as long as it is not a Righteous Judge who holds us accountable for our actions."
Western science was only a Christian endeavor when it was supported and therefore controlled by the church. (By the way, what about all the practicing Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists who are scientists?) By it's very nature science is arreligious. It's the study of observable, natural phenomenon. A person's personal beliefs shouldn't jade their ability to perform research. If it is, then their tests and results are far from scientific. I'm sorry if this present a problem to your belief system, but it's the only way to achieve tenable results. Next time you get a vaccination, perhaps you should thank the scientists for doing actual research instead of claiming the virus was "intelligently designed" and then throwing their hands up in the air in surrender. Or is that what you want?
"1)Darwin threw out evidence against his theory (I saw some of it with my own eyes). This is against the scientific method, because if something does not fit the theory, then the theory should change to fit the evidence, not vice versa."
Citation of evidence, please.
"2) "Scientists" consider Evolution (def: that all known life evolved from one single-cell organism) FACT. Most of the evolution-upholding scientists in the documentary called it such. In the scientific method, there is no fact; one should always consider a theory as something that has just not been disproved YET."
I don't know any scientists who regarding anything in science as a fact. Perhaps they causually deem it, by now, to be a given considering the mounds of evidence that support it. As I iterated earlier, show me the evidence for ID and I will gladly reconsider my position.
"3) No one has ever successfully duplicated evolution, just like no one has ever duplicated the beginning. Therefore, it is nothing but a weak theory, maybe just hypothesis."
Damn, all those lab E. coli producing novel proteins after many generations under different conditions was a farce. As for duplicating "the beginning", how should we go about creating another pre-life Earth? Seems like a very labor intensive experiment, but I'd be glad to hear your suggestions. So far, all pre-biotic chemists can do is hypothesize the conditions of an early Earth. As for evolution being a "hypothesis", I think you need to better familiarize yourself with scientific terms and the evidence supporting it.
"See this movie. I give it 2 (opposing) thumbs up."
I'm sure you meant "opposable".
Alana
Hi Alana~
I did not mean to offend you, and most of what I'm sharing was in the documentary (ie, Berlin Wall, scientists calling evolution fact, renowned professors losing tenureship by mentioning the possibility of ID or even allowing students to question evolution). I think you should see it. Even if you disagree, it shows you that many well researched scientists have been ostracized because their findings shake the system.
As far as the prof at my alma mater, I won't get into details (as it is still touchy with many), but he was in the English department, was probably the most lauded teacher by the students across disciplines (many students from different colleges used their electives for his Shakespeare, Mythology, or Dostoyevsky courses), and was not tenured basically because the 'higher powers that be' didn't like how he did not have a postmodern view of everthing. Of course, it's much more complicated than that, but the picture. Your "poor form" is right, and that's basically what this documentary is about. Stein interviews many professors that have been condemned by researching and writing about finding that go against the theory of evolution. The idea is that science by definition SHOULD be unbiased, it should be arreligious, it should be open-minded enough to let the research do the talking instead of telling people what their research needs to find. However, this is not the case, as this doc points out. I completely agree that one's religious beliefs should not be the starting point for their research, data, hypotheses, et al.
However, if you'd read Aldous Huxley, son of Thomas Huxley, Darwin's PR man - if you will - you'd understand that Darwin himself was religiously motivated to extinguish God. He was mad at God because his daughter died, and he wanted freedom to filfill his sexual sins (this is according to A Huxley). As far as citations for his neglecting evidence that opposed his hypothesis, this was either in his journals (which I read in the basement of a museum in Cambridge) or in a biography. Most likely the journal.
About the Nazis and the eugenics projects that were happening all over the western world (Planned Parenthood in the US!), the idea was to help nature along by "weeding out the weak". If you understand what they were doing: forcing the "weaker traits" to become extinct (by first keeping them from procreating, then by just killing them), you speed up the process of Nature by creating a fitter species. The Theory of Natural Selection DOES say that some traits are better (more suitable for survival) than others, or why else do they beat others out. Sick, yes I know. Read some of their stuff; it's horrifying, but completely logical given the Darwinian worldview.
In "Origin", Darwin goes into long praises of Nature for being so wise and wonderful in her selecting power.
What I pointed out in my paper about Darwin, as well as I want to point out about Dawkins, is that their religion is keeping them from openmindedness toward anything that opposes it. They see science through the lens of their atheism, which is a religion, where the self is its own god. Stein is calling for objectivity on all parties, because those who shout "Academic Freedom" the loudest are usually doing so in order to drown out anyone in opposition.
Aligirl – while you might thank Alana for your next flu shot, I would be VERY CAREFUL if she ever suggests you take a shower in a dingy room with a bunch of other people she doesn’t seem to like much!
Alana, first take a breath. A long, deep one. Feel how good it feels? That is because you are human, not god. Even if you are a “scientist.” Even if you got an “A” on your last science project. Even if you can parrot without fault the BS your professors regurgitated your direction. Yes, if you hadn’t learned it their way, you would been given a “C” (ugh, average), and if they wouldn’t have said it that way, they would have been fired. And that is the whole point of the movie. (Which I have seen, and I’ll bet that you have not.) The point is that many highly-esteemed scientists believe that their positions on issues shall not be questioned, because they are well above questioning. See the movie, if you dare.
“I don't know any scientists who regarding (sic) anything in science as a fact.” Wow. So how far does your experience with scientists extend? Surely not as far as your penchant for overstating conclusions from under-researched data.
I can tell that you are not far along your path to scientific royalty, so let me tell you a story. If, at some point, you become a smidgen open-minded, it may benefit you. I enthusiastically went to grad school at the top-rated university in my field. There I mostly learned that what I had been taught as an undergraduate wasn’t nearly as true as they told me it was. I was employed as a research assistant on a grant-funded project adapting a modeling technique that made my major professor famous. When I voiced my opinion that the model did not realistically fit the data, and that conclusions drawn from it would be false, my time there was over. In a “publish or die” world, where publishing is restricted to “peer-review”, one must “play well with others” or find a line of work where independent thought and honest investigation of problems is tolerated.
You claim that “science By it's (sic) very nature science is arreligious (sic)”. Surely, you are not so naïve. Like it is apolitical, too, right? On the contrary, the evolutionists in the movie responded (as you have) with such vitriolic hatred as is usually displayed by “religious fundamentalists.” Because that’s what they are, religious in their faith in evolution as the guiding force of the universe. (Or maybe aliens, Dr. Dawkins.)
Even if you personify science as something apart from the mind of the scientist, you would surely not argue that scientists are areligious or apolitical. The dispute is which is the chicken and which is the egg. Some scientists claim that their scientific findings have led them to their political and religious beliefs. Their actions suggest the opposite. I think you might admit to a predisposition against Christianity. (Sorry I noticed, but your slip is showing.)
You referred to Hitler’s memoirs; have you studied Mein Kampf? You say that he was a Catholic; I know that he was raised that way, but if he were actually a practicing Catholic, I’ll bet those confessions were something! “Forgive me father for I have sinned. It has been one week since my last confession, and thousand of people have been tortured, mutilated, starved and killed since my last confession.” Wow!
Surely this is not your first “issue” with Aligirl. If you two are strangers, I would really hate to be your ex-boyfriend.
Hi Alana~
I did not mean to offend you, and most of what I'm sharing was in the documentary (ie, Berlin Wall, scientists calling evolution fact, renowned professors losing tenureship by mentioning the possibility of ID or even allowing students to question evolution). I think you should see it. Even if you disagree, it shows you that many well researched scientists have been ostracized because their findings shake the system.
Howdy Ali. :)
You didn't offend me; you know I have thicker skin than that (stupid golf calluses). In order to call "Expelled" a documentary, in my opinion, you'd have to use the broadest definition of the word possible. In other words, it had interviews and is more boring than "Die Hard", yet more entertaining than "You've Got Mail". As for it having any factual content, I’m a bit skeptical, but will reserve judgment until I’ve seen it. I've not heard of any "renowned professors who have lost their tenure" by mentioning ID or encouraging their students to think critically about evolution. In fact, the goal of any teacher should be to teach their students to think critically about all subjects. Furthermore, it's very hard for a professor to lose tenure. They must perpetrate a very egregious act in order for that to happen. I've already mentioned Behe and his backing of ID. As for shaking the system, I will reiterate my previous statement. Show me the evidence for ID and I will gladly change my thinking. Whoever did the research will win a Nobel and we can all be happy in knowing more of the universe has been explained.
"As far as the prof at my alma mater, I won't get into details (as it is still touchy with many), but he was in the English department, was probably the most lauded teacher by the students across disciplines (many students from different colleges used their electives for his Shakespeare, Mythology, or Dostoyevsky courses), and was not tenured basically because the 'higher powers that be' didn't like how he did not have a postmodern view of everthing. Of course, it's much more complicated than that, but the picture."
I'm sorry to hear about your professor. If he felt discriminated against, he should've filed suit.
"Your "poor form" is right, and that's basically what this documentary is about. Stein interviews many professors that have been condemned by researching and writing about finding that go against the theory of evolution. The idea is that science by definition SHOULD be unbiased, it should be arreligious, it should be open-minded enough to let the research do the talking instead of telling people what their research needs to find. However, this is not the case, as this doc points out. I completely agree that one's religious beliefs should not be the starting point for their research, data, hypotheses, et al."
This portion is in direct contradiction to your previous statement:
"I wrote my paper (for my Cambridge course) on how Darwin intended to make science arreligious (without religion) - because before him, science was intended to discover God's revelation through creation - but what he did instead was change the religion of science from a judeo-christian endeavor to a Nature-and-therefore-SELF-as-God religion."
So, science is supposed to be arreligious yet Judeo-Christian? Or, is it only supposed to be "arreligious" so long as it substantiates your predetermined notions about nature and the universe? I'm starting to think it's the latter. So, which statement do you stand behind?
"However, if you'd read Aldous Huxley, son of Thomas Huxley, Darwin's PR man - if you will - you'd understand that Darwin himself was religiously motivated to extinguish God. He was mad at God because his daughter died, and he wanted freedom to filfill his sexual sins (this is according to A Huxley). As far as citations for his neglecting evidence that opposed his hypothesis, this was either in his journals (which I read in the basement of a museum in Cambridge) or in a biography. Most likely the journal."
I've read Huxley, but am not familiar with his writings regarding Darwin. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction. As for Darwin's supposed motivation in proposing the theory of evolution, in all honesty, they're moot. The rationale behind scientific research matters not one bit. Darwin could've been a raging homosexual trying to prove that Thor was god and that Valhalla really existed for all that science cares. All that matters is that his theory fits the observations and data. Nothing else. As for his journal, all his writings are digitally cataloged now. So, I'll have to peruse them and see what I find.
"About the Nazis and the eugenics projects that were happening all over the western world (Planned Parenthood in the US!), the idea was to help nature along by "weeding out the weak". If you understand what they were doing: forcing the "weaker traits" to become extinct (by first keeping them from procreating, then by just killing them), you speed up the process of Nature by creating a fitter species. The Theory of Natural Selection DOES say that some traits are better (more suitable for survival) than others, or why else do they beat others out. Sick, yes I know. Read some of their stuff; it's horrifying, but completely logical given the Darwinian worldview.
In "Origin", Darwin goes into long praises of Nature for being so wise and wonderful in her selecting power."
I'll go over this one more time. Evolution is not a philosophy. It purports no moral tenets to be held nor advocates any actions be taken. It's a scientific description of the evidence. Those who claim their actions are validated by evolution are sick. They are twisting science as a means to their own ends. There is nothing "natural" about eugenics. Those who say someone is "weaker" are basing their opinions on some arbitrary parameters. Yes, in evolution those who aren't as well adapted to the environment do not live to pass on their genes. That's the way nature works. However, we as a society do not have to base our actions on nature. We can help the weak and feed the hungry. People who advocate forced sterilization or eugenics are malevolent people, and would be whether or not they used "Darwinism" as a cover for their actions. So, I think the problem lies not in the science, but in the capacity for cruelty some people are capable of. (We can discuss Planned Parenthood later if you'd like.)
"What I pointed out in my paper about Darwin, as well as I want to point out about Dawkins, is that their religion is keeping them from openmindedness toward anything that opposes it. They see science through the lens of their atheism, which is a religion, where the self is its own god. Stein is calling for objectivity on all parties, because those who shout "Academic Freedom" the loudest are usually doing so in order to drown out anyone in opposition."
If atheism is a religion, then balding is a hair color. It simply means the person doesn't subscribe to any religious dogmas, including self worship. In addition, science by its very nature cannot include god. It’s the study of natural, observable phenomenon. Supposedly, god dwells outside this sphere and works in mysterious ways. Why should they include him in their studies when he’s not exactly tangible or observable? So, there’s the answer to their attitude towards religion in science.
I hope we can keep this dialog going. :)
Babbler & Ali, you'rearguments are so poorly founded it makes me sick. What school is it tht you went to Babbler? So highly rated. Surely you have better things to do with your time than comment on this blog. As for Alana and Ali, I know them both personally and the know each other. What I can tell you is that if anyone is bias in their views and without reason it is Ali and her unwaivering dedication to an imaginary man in the sky. I'll ask only that the next time you shake hands with God you be sure to introduce him to your University's highly acclaimed faculty.
I'm sure you will all forgive my typo. I wasn't fortunate enough to attend a summer class at the mighty Cambridge.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, passionate stranger - if you're brave (or rude) enough to post such an impolite comment, at least be brave enough to unmask yourself. In the first place, I was merely reviewing a documentary that many unstupid and quite founded scientists apparently agree with. However, this emotion that you, Alana, and many of the scientists exhibited in the doc. bespeaks of this issue being more than just objective science, but rather "something one believes in and follows devotedly" (definition #6 for 'religion').
Alana - you pointed out that I was unclear in a few things; let me try to clear some of the confusion.
Before Darwin, science was primarily a Judeo-Christian endeavor, and most scientists were either clergy or employed by state schools (and in England, they had to subscribe to the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church to teach). So in much the same way as today (except in the opposite direction), they were funded to please the higher powers that be. Of course, that's just as wrong scientifically as what Stein is saying is wrong with today. Darwin was one of the “Gentlemen of Science” who were fortunate enough to not have to work for a living.
Yes, science came from a primarily Judeo-Christian mindset of an orderly Creator who designed the universe in what you today take so for granted as "laws". Melvin Calvin, Nobel Prize winner in biochemistry: "As I try to discern the origin of that conviction [the origin of the universe] I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws [Greeks]. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science." The idea of a knowable creation stems from the idea of a knowable Creator. Joseph Needham in the 1960s wrote that the East was not so scientifically-prone because "For them the idea that the universe could be governed by simple laws which humans could and had discovered was foolish and extreme" because they did not believe in an Orderer. So the things you cherish, like laws and repeatability are only available to you because of those darn primitive theists! Measurable science would not exist if people only believed in randomness, meaninglessness, and chance.
As for evidence of design, since I'm a literarily inclined :) I'll give some words by people. First, Richard Dawkins, in the doc., says his most plausible account for the beginning of it all was aliens who designed all of this and planted it here. That's why, in my original post, I said he showed himself to be an idiot. I stand by that statement. The man claims that this universe could in no way be designed – only if that designer is known as God. But it could be designed by aliens. Is it just me, or did he say that the universe was most likely Designed? Don't answer unless you've seen the doc. There's some evidence from your posterboy.
Slide #2, please. "Natural Selection...is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts [in breeding], as the works of Nature are to those of art...Nature cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they may be useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends. Every selected character is fully exercised by her..." She is also shown to be a persistent and caring nurturer to bring out the best opportunity for survival in the environment: "Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life" (Darwin, Origin, 61,83-84). According to Darwin, capital 'N' Nature is omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent, wise, and caring for her creatures. Origins is filled with these types of praises. The funny thing is that one could use the name “Nature” and “God” interchangeably in this text, depending on your denomination, of course. Darwin, here, believes in an active, personal God; just not a moral one. Convenient, don’t you think? Keep all the good stuff you like about God, throw out the condemnation of a Holy Judge, and stamp a new name on your creation.
This brings me back to the Nameless One: looks like Darwin has his own Lady in the Sky, but I doubt he ever shook hands with her. I won’t have to introduce my former professor to the Lord; He already knows him. And I don’t think anyone shakes hands with the Almighty; I bow; and someday you will too. Whoops, there went my bias again, but stop calling the kettle black, Mr. Biased Pot. That’s all for now, I have papers to grade.
Ok, Alana, now I am confused about who is biased and who has actually seen the movie being discussed:
“In order to call "Expelled" a documentary, in my opinion, you'd have to use the broadest definition of the word possible. In other words, it had interviews and is more boring than "Die Hard", yet more entertaining than "You've Got Mail". As for it having any factual content, I’m a bit skeptical, but will reserve judgment until I’ve seen it.”
So have you seen it, or are you deriding it prior to your viewing?
“Anonymous” might take note of this before she labels one person as more biased than another.
Also, “Anonymous”, if that IS your real name, suffice it to say that the University that I referred to was also mentioned in the movie. Watch it if you dare!
And back to Alana the Wise:
As your words expose your lack of age and educational level, I presume that you are working to earn a PhD…. Surely not! Not a Doctorate of Philosophy in Science! Better stop with a M.S. before your high horse bucks you off into the bias patch!
Regarding Atheism: The Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2005 that Atheism is a religion… it remains the law of the land today:
"A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must be it be a mainstream faith."
"Without venturing too far into the real of the philosophical," continued the court, "we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of 'ultimate concern' that occupy a 'place parallel to that filled by God in traditional religious persons,' those beliefs represent her religion."
You also said, “In addition, science by its very nature cannot include god. It’s the study of natural, observable phenomenon. Supposedly, god dwells outside this sphere and works in mysterious ways.” Ah, there’s the rub: your faulty presupposition forces your false conclusion. You postulate that God does not operate in this sphere, and so you conclude that you cannot find Him.
If your love of science is built upon Blood, Sweat and Tears, then maybe you’d like a song:
Swear there aint no Heaven
and I will pray there aint no hell
but I will never know by livin´
only my dyin´ will tell
Maybe Ali has more to live for than you… why don’t you ask her to give an account for the hope that is in her?
Post a Comment