Just saw Ben Stein's documentary, "Expelled" about the issues of Darwinism......

I really HIGHLY suggest that all darwinists/evolutionists, athiests, and agnostics watch this move.

Basically, I've been saying for years that Evolutionists have political control over all academics in America so much so that any one who even thinks to speak in nuetrality of or in favor for Intelligent Design is immediately blacklisted/ousted from their current positions in academia and many lose their tenures. The blacklisting runs so deep the for many years it's impossible for some of the genius scientists to find work anywhere.

Basically the movie shows what I've known for the last 8 years of my life; The top people in the scientific community are being funded be elitists (all of whom have specific political ties to other organizations) and there is no longer freedon of inquiry, nor freedom of speech in science.

As a U.S. citizen, knowing this is taking place in this Country above all other countries is simply appalling and I cannot take this scientific community seriously anymore knowing that this is taking place, at least in the areas of darwinism vs. intelligent design when it's obvious the huge bias that exists towards evolution.

Myself having experienced spiritual enlightenment first hand, I know subjectively and objectively that God is real....objectively because others I know have shared my experiences. You see God cannot be found and seen using Logic and reason....the two most important and fundamental faculties used in science.

God is found in the sytematic surpassing/transcending of these faculties (logic/reason) using a number of different techniques and excercises. Of course if you dont do them and you are still staying within the limited confines of logic and reason...then yes I see how most of you do not have room for God. I was once there myself in the limited way of being, until being spiritually freed.

I am not saying anything about sytematic or dogmatic religion, which I myself abhor....Im just saying that there are diamonds and jewels to be had of you look past the crap, the superstitions, and the dogma, let alone caring what your peers will think of you if they found you were investigating spirituality.

Overall its just real bad news for the scientific community knowing freedom of speech doesnt exist anymore. But the end of the day it's a funny paradox because of the fact that I know when these same intelligent design bashers cast of their physical shells, they will be confronted with the spiritual realms and will be in for a shock of their lives........ the last laugh is on me.

Seriously though, while I tend to subscribe to a combination of Intelligent design and partial/limted evolution..... I definately dont ascribe to the complete argument of darwanism which to me has more holes than 1,000 pounds of swiss cheese and is just a theory.

Given these arguments....I can say that these arguments are intelligent, as are those that read these words, as was Darwin also Intelligent. Now that I think about it, evolution is an intelligent way for life to progress, and those that make these observations do so intellgently. Yet there's more because the way we process observations is in a systematically designed process, as each of our cells are a sort of design, as is each of us, each planet, including the process of evolution itself. You can say evolution is a design with all of its wonderful and seemingly intelligently evolved features.

What a paradox in a nutshell!!!!!!!!! Please do watch that movie I urge you all.

I hope to see it soon.

You're so right about MONOPOLY!
Many times in a university, professors make it a POINT to humiliate anyone who would DARE believe in God or creationism. And they have a bully pulpit to work from!
Good to see a non-conformist perspective, isn't it?

Yes it was definately great to see a non-conformist view. We nned more of that, unfortunately most of the media is owned by 1 man or 1 corp thats in bed with all the elitists who biasedly realease whats the public gets to know.

I think the greates part of the movie though is that Richard Dawkins makes himself sound like a fool at the end. It's the orgasm of the culmination of this movie.

Ben Stein = Genius. DId I mention besides the few acting gigs he's done, Stein is also a lawyer, economist, author, and ex-presedintial speech writer?????

The maker of this movie purposefully mislead the scientists he interviewed as to what the movie was going to be about. They all thought it was a movie called 'Crossroads' that had a pro-science viewpoint. It's complete hypocrisy. Watch this movie only with the understanding that it is pure propaganda and mangling of the facts.

Bottom Line: God created what we call Darwinism to carry out his intelligent design. It's as simple as that.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by jupiter869]

Darwinian evolution is a useful and predictive theory. It has value in scientific circles. But it is not the end of the story.


So much of the complexity the theory of evolution gets distilled down to a disturbingly simple phrase that does no justice to the full explanation of how evolution works. That phrase is "survival of the fittest." It gets even uglier when this concept is applied in terms of "social darwinism", whereby the powerful justify and excuse the excess power they wield over great numbers of other human beings as just the result of the laws of nature.


This would lead one to assume that victors in a life/death struggle have the laws of nature on their side... like a silent cheerleader.


This is a mistake to assume. What is being ignored here is the fact that so much of human survival is interdependence and cooperation. We are such a complex system of interaction that the idea of "toughest guy wins" really has no application to humanity as a whole.


Success is no longer defined in the singular. We are a social species. Whenever one of us demands from others more than they give, they are simply a parasite on the system.


The challenges humanity faces cannot be overcome so long as we selfishly dwell in the ridiculous notion that our species still lives in a dog-eat-dog paradigm. We are not insects. We are a species with memory, history, culture, and technology... and to abuse the benefits of our natural blessings is to undermine our mutual success along the road to the future.


Selfishness is a weed in humanity that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. The good news is that we can learn how detrimental this force is in society, and once we learn, we can work to change our culture to foster an attitude of cooperation rather than competition. A world built on a foundation of competition, by necessity, requires losers. What if we can all win?


Once humanity outgrows this notion of scarcity, and realizes that any need can be meet with human ingenuity (no matter how un-plentiful resources may seem) then we will be well on our way to achieving goals none of us can even dream of.


The future is ours and the sky is the limit. But for right now we've got to grow up and get over the "me me me" attitude so well personified in our "wealthy" and "leaders".




[edit on 20-4-2008 by ianr5741]

even if the makers of the movie mislead the scientists they interviewed (which aftering whatching the movie I highly doubt such a thing happened) It would be very easy for the interviewee to bounce back from any questions.

As a matter of fact, many of the universities that fired intelligent design supporting scientists, refused to be interviewed because they knew it was in regards to the scientists they fired.

The one did did interview pretty much flat out admitted they dont support intelligent design. Regardless, there was very little room for manipulating any of the interviews, nor is this propoganda.

Like I said, I've personally known for the last 8 years (having some college professors as associates of mine) that an evolution "fascist like" regime exists in american academia that has basically put science in a box and freedom of scinetific speech is non-existant.

It's a fact that many scientists that work with intelligent desgin have been fired, lost tenure's, and have been black listed from the community. This documentary is all about these facts.

So to all your propoganda talk....I say it's truth and the way things are, and the documentary recieved a standing ovation where I watched it.

reply to post by ianr5741

so much of human survival is interdependence and cooperation

This is a fundamental truth that was excised with extreme prejudice from Darwin's work. The elite need us pitted against each other in a pecking order mode that negates the power of primary partnerships. They twisted Darwin's work in a direction he never took nor intended.

1 Corinthians 12 tells the same story as the quote above. Well put ianr5741, well put.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

I think Darwin got it right about the theory of Evolution... that a species evolves in order to deal with new environmental paradigms... and maybe survival of the fittest worked in earlier times on this planet... but now that social interdependence has developed, and consciousness has expanded, evolution itsself must follow suit. To assume that one thing is above change over all other is a ludicous idea. If evolution cannot evolve to fit new paradigms, how can what is evolving evolve?

Survival of the fittest is true, in a sense, though.... good ideas flourish.... bad ones are put to the wayside and forgotten.

Survival of ideas that work the best with the whole, I guess?

Also, I don't believe that there is one being that is some superpowerful decider of the universe. I think the unifverse decides for itsself, and same with everything in it. We couldn't have a successful idea without all of our nervous cells contributing, now could we?

Well, I think since it got a thumbs up from Rush Limbaugh! Go team!!

We all know that Rush Limbaugh is the greatest movie critic of all time......

There's a great joke: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenberg?

One is a flaming gas bag ---- and the other is a dirigible.

ps....Could everyone please take a step back and recall that Ben Stein used to write speeches for Richard M. Nixon?

'Nuf said.....

[edit on 4/20/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by dominicus
, at least in the areas of darwinism vs. intelligent design when it's obvious the huge bias that exists towards evolution.

There is no scientific debate around Darwinism vs intelligent design any more than there is a scientific debate around Darwinism vs Pixies. The bias exists towards the evidence, as with all science.

Intelligent design is a philosophical and scientific dead end - it's been around for decades yet has gone nowhere. In fact it's been in reverse and more and more cases of so called "irreducible complexity" have been shown to be nothing of the sort.

You appear to want academic departments to study ID, yet what exactly do you want them to do all day? Go looking for this designer god? That's the job of religion - if you want to find god go to a a church, not a science dept.

There is simply nothing to study in ID, it's just the God of the Gaps argument re-hashed with a veneer of science.

You see God cannot be found and seen using Logic and reason....the two most important and fundamental faculties used in science.

You're right - so why are you arguing for god to be brought into science via intelligent design?

The Archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the Anglican Church) says that mixing science and spirituality like that is a massive mistake:

He explained: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." Creationists and proponents of intelligent design (ID) - the "alternative theory" to evolution by natural selection - assert that the natural world must have had a designer.

....

Dr Williams's comments indicate he believes that creationism and evolution are not two sides of the same coin, however. He said: "I think creationism is...a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. If creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories."

source: www.theregister.co.uk...

I am not saying anything about sytematic or dogmatic religion, which I myself abhor....Im just saying that there are diamonds and jewels to be had of you look past the crap, the superstitions, and the dogma, let alone caring what your peers will think of you if they found you were investigating spirituality.

Perhaps, but none of this has anything to do with science.

It sounds to me like you refer to spirituality as being purely religious. In most cases, I'd have to agree with you. People get stuck in other people's dogmas because it makes them comfortable with the things they don't know, whether it's a major religion, or a New Age movement, or a political party, or a hot new scientific theory, or and old one, or what have you... (unfortunately, it makes them close-minded and easily manipulated, as well)

But the thing is... spirituality tries to answer the questions that science can only suppose... and science looks at everything as separate and material and based on immovable laws... while true spirituality looks at the BIG PICTURE.... and sees it all as one. One consciousness that didn't CREATE everything, but that IS everything.

If you wanna see where science and spirituality start to join forces and make sense of each other, study quantum theory and fractal geometry. If you have already... then maybe you can see where I'm coming from.

There is no huge all knowing God being deciding our fate. Yes, God, in the traditional sense, is not real.

Everything decides its fate. We are everything... and that is the true end in your spiritual journey. Where you can stop looking for something else to give you comfort, and you can become comfortable just as you are.

I guarantee you, this is where both mainstream science and creationism miss the point entirely.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by indierockalien]

Terms & Conditions Of Use

Quote the post immediately before yours: This makes no sense, and quoting the entire previous post above yours will result in a slight warning.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by Jbird]

If you wanna see where science and spirituality start to join forces and make sense of each other, study quantum theory and fractal geometry. If you have already... then maybe you can see where I'm coming from.

They don't "join forces" - this is the point of science. To confuse the 2 areas is to make the Category Error that the Archbishop refers to in my quote above.

Academic science depts (amongst other places) are where you study science - they are not places for the study of god or spirituality.

I have studied quantum theory and, like all but a few, I don't truly understand it - however I can't see where spirituality comes into it at all.

Hey. You i DO remember.....

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
There is no scientific debate around Darwinism vs intelligent design any more than there is a scientific debate around Darwinism vs Pixies. The bias exists towards the evidence, as with all science.

Doesn't that just show up the limitations of science ( which it obviously is) when it comes to it's demand for certain types of evidence only? In science bias surely exists and at the best of times it's towards certain types of evidence as it's always against any type of science that does not validate commonly held scientific establishment beliefs. Funnily it was not the church that had a problem with the Earth being round but astronomers and 'scientist' of the day!

Intelligent design is a philosophical and scientific dead end - it's been around for decades yet has gone nowhere.

Where is it supposed to go? I mean what has changed but how the scientific establishment attacks the intelligent design and or creationist movement? How intelligent design can be a philosophical dead end i just don't understand ( who changed life on Earth? Why? Are they or it still around? Where do they/it come from? Did they evolve naturally or were they designed as well?) but i suppose that's about as much as the average scientist knows about philosophy. As for it being a scientific dead end that's also a reach as ideally we would like to have a scientific date for when these changes were done, what we were like before, how many changes have happened since, whatever we can learn about the intelligent designers etc.

You appear to want academic departments to study ID, yet what exactly do you want them to do all day? Go looking for this designer god? That's the job of religion - if you want to find god go to a a church, not a science dept.

I think i just provided you with questions enough to occupy such departments for a good volume of time. In fact we may answer most other questions far sooner than those!

There is simply nothing to study in ID, it's just the God of the Gaps argument re-hashed with a veneer of science.

Well maybe you wish to address the specific questions i named there as i belief they are questions worthy of investigation by the much praised 'scientific' 'method'. .

You're right - so why are you arguing for god to be brought into science via intelligent design?

I must disagree with you as much as with him. I do not see why a 'god' ( and by that i mean a intelligent designer or designers ) can not be found by the scientific method unless one presumes that they brought about what they did by forces from outside this universe? Why should anyone who employs the scientific methods presume that anything that happens in this universe can or has been achieved trough 'magic'? If there are a 'god' we will most certainly discover him allowing the way and it's only very bad, and probably arrogant, scientist that have done away with the notion that greater engineers and scientist than themselves created what they are investigating.

The Archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the Anglican Church) says that mixing science and spirituality like that is a massive mistake:

Well he has every reason to do so as clearly this does away with all the 'magic' of creation and immediately raises the question of just how awesome and wonderful the creators are. If there is no magic and it's all engineered why worship the engineers? It's a damn good question and i can see why his concerned for his steady income...

He explained: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." Creationists and proponents of intelligent design (ID) - the "alternative theory" to evolution by natural selection - assert that the natural world must have had a designer.

Sure they do but are they the type of people that believe in creation as magical force or the type that sees it as a scientific/engineering task? In this case the average joe is still going to give you a bit of money every week and you need not be concerned and since the other type is probably not going to church nothing much will change.

Dr Williams's comments indicate he believes that creationism and evolution are not two sides of the same coin, however. He said: "I think creationism is...a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. If creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories."

source: www.theregister.co.uk...

So deductive reasoning is reduced to being the result of 'confused' reasoning? Funny stuff....

Perhaps, but none of this has anything to do with science.

The pot calling the kettle black. Your post does not in any way serves as proof or reason why we as people should appeal to the scientific method or scientist in general!

Stellar

Read All About It

Here is some information about what the makers of Exposed really did and what really happened to all those 'persecuted Creationist scientists'.

Ben Stein's Blunder

More specific, detailed information is available here.

Expelled Exposed: The Truth

Read and decide for yourselves who's telling the truth and who isn't.

You may also find this little discussion amusing. Be sure to read all the way to the end.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
They don't "join forces" - this is the point of science.

No they don't but there is no fundamental reason why they should have. The problem arises when scientist refuse to address fundamental human questions by applying the best knowledge the scientific method has yielded so far to further to develop further methods and question so as to best yield scientifically useful data.

To confuse the 2 areas is to make the Category Error that the Archbishop refers to in my quote above.

And if you read the entire quote you would have found that there " is no lasting agreement on how to identify category mistakes. "

To be sure of the possibility of a category mistake you have to know everything about most things , if not everything, and since we do not know everything about god, spirituality, or intelligent design there is no way you can presume that's the scientific investigation of these question are 'category' mistake. You, like most people who are scientist or like to defend them, are presuming to have knowledge and evidence that has most certainly not been peer reviewed and certainly not widely accepted in the scientific community.

Academic science depts (amongst other places) are where you study science - they are not places for the study of god or spirituality.

Only if one presumes that the investigation of god and spirituality will not yield to scientific investigation. Since this is largely deductive reasoning you end up with presumption and assumption instead of fact. What we can say for sure is that commonly yield beliefs about god will probably not much help the scientific investigation of such a phenomenon but when has misinformation ever held up progress forever?

I have studied quantum theory and, like all but a few, I don't truly understand it -

Always be suspicious of people who pretends to understand quantum physics as they are at best pretending to understand what isn't and at worse something that wont ever be due to exceptionally severe, and apparently fundamental to the basic claims, contradictions.

however I can't see where spirituality comes into it at all.

And how would you if you like every other sane person rightly claims not to understand it all? Isn't that the WHOLE DAMN POINT of the scientific process? That we can't claim final knowledge?

Eesh! Scientist! If the ( bad) theory could pay them they could just as well have been lawyers for all the good their doing.

Stellar

All I'm saying is that Intelligent design isn't dead and is definately worth investigating further. I say this because there are genius top scientists around the world that still make progress in this idea/philosophy.

To say I.D. is dead is to say that you personally know every single thing about the issue and have explored the topic yourself fevershly from top to bottom.

This is a topic that can be explored minus religion and minus spirituality....instead it gets balckballed by the US academic scene.....thats preposterous.

The fact that we have modern day geniuses around the world still investigating I.D. shows that it's definately far from being a dead topic in the the "evolution" of our knowledge.

Yes I did say that God can only be found once you have surpassed logic and reason, because logic and reason are limited and boxed in.

But I also say that science itself will officially reach new frontiers in giant leaps if the scientists themselves could transcend the limits of logic and reason and function using new faculties that are actually available to all of us, but very few have tapped in that far.

I also have this hunch, that it's the remaining genius scientists that are still studying intelligent design, that are themselves having glimpses of something beyond logic and reason.

Evolution has become this cold beaurucratic teaching having been forced/institutionalized. I mean hey if evolution is real...thats fine I'd be all for it...but the manner in which it's become a fascist tool in academics is extremely sickening and as a result has completely null and voided the study of other avenues for fear of reprimandation.

reply to post by dominicus


i would not pay to say that propagandistic drivel.

it's not expelled, it's flunked

www.expelledexposed.com...

among other things they:

lie to those they're interviewing

myers, dawkins, and others were told they were being interviewed for the movie "crossroads" which was about how religion and science met with disastrous effect, when such a film never existed


quote mine darwin to make it look like his works supported the holocaust

by omitting this simple part of a quote

but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

and linking the theory of evolution to the holocaust... well, that's just an assault on collective human reason

oh, and they wholly ignore the existence of theists that support evolution...

basically, this is somehow a movie less scientifically accurate than the movie 10,000 B.C. and/or Meet the Spartans

Originally posted by dominicus
I say this because there are genius top scientists around the world that still make progress in this idea/philosophy.

Precisely - it's an "idea/philosophy" not science.

This is a topic that can be explored minus religion and minus spirituality....instead it gets balckballed by the US academic scene.....thats preposterous.

Scientists won't deal with it as it's not science.

The fact that we have modern day geniuses around the world still investigating I.D. shows that it's definately far from being a dead topic in the the "evolution" of our knowledge.

Who are these "geniuses" and can you detail exactly what progress they have made?

Yes I did say that God can only be found once you have surpassed logic and reason, because logic and reason are limited and boxed in.

But I also say that science itself will officially reach new frontiers in giant leaps if the scientists themselves could transcend the limits of logic and reason and function using new faculties that are actually available to all of us, but very few have tapped in that far.

This shows a profound misunderstanding of science. Science is all about logic and reason - if you want to transcend that then fine - get into philosophy or metaphyics.

which it's become a fascist tool in academics is extremely sickening and as a result has completely null and voided the study of other avenues for fear of reprimandation.

Rubbish - there are constant heated debates amongst biologists over the nature of evolution. Just look at the Darwkins vs Gould debate that raged for over a decade and is still ongoing.

Do you also think geologists are "fascist" for not teaching the alternative theory of a hollow earth populated by nazi goblins? Do you think historians are fascist for not teaching the alternative theory that the Roman Empire ended as they listened to too much gangsta rap? Where do you want the alternatives to end?

Have you looked at the links I posted, dominicus?

Remember -- if you won't read those links, you don't know what you're talking about.

Read, learn the truth, then come back here and say what you have to.