|
|
Post by Caunion on Oct 28, 2008 22:58:28 GMT -5
Mehh I've considered watching Expelled, but I think it'll be like watching those cheesy propaganda films. I know Ben Stein exaggerated many of the claims he made in the film and presented misconceptions as truth. For example, the people he presented as "expelled" were not persecuted as harshly as he depicted it or stated.
In my honest opinion, it is just about as reliable as "The Birth of a Nation" or "The Eternal Jew". It plays too much on victimizing and bashing, rather than actually presenting facts or reliable information.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 28, 2008 23:07:41 GMT -5
I have very little interest in seeing that one. Not so much because it's a swipe at religion, but because Bill Maher is an egotistical, blow hard prick, so I have pretty strong doubts about the relevance of anything he might have to say.
Okay, back on topic.
I have learned that the premise of Eugenics, forced sterilization or killing of any member of society that the scientific establishment didn't deem worthy to breed, was based in the ideas of the theory of Evolution and later writings of Darwin. In Nazi Germany this was used as a rational for murdering thousands. In the US, it was used as a rational for forced sterilization of 50,000 people, and has since morphed into Planned Parenthood, which was designed to keep lower income people from procreating. I can say that that bit about Planned Parenthood is something I've heard before, and actually looked into. It was founded by the same folks, and the leader of that organization is (? I'm not sure if she's still with us) still a major proponent of Eugenics.
I also learned that Richard Dawkin, mentioned elsewhere here as a leading light of the Evolution movement, has a very interesting theory on how life began here. Apparently, since science has disproved the idea that electricity struck the primordial ooze, spontaneously creating life, Evolutionists have moved on. One theory presented was that life piggy backed on the formation of crystals. The gentleman who proposed this thought could not articulate how that might have happened, but articulated very well his love of crystals and their mutative qualities. Mr. Dawkin posited a different theory. Apparently, he does believe that science will eventually find that there was intelligent design. His current theory is that another civilization arose somewhere, engineered life, and seeded it on this planet. So, apparently there is no possibility that God exists, but aliens are a pretty good explanation. Things that make you go hmmm.
The biggest thing that struck me in this film was that the people talking about intelligent design, once past the hell that they'd taken for daring to mention the idea in academia, talked science. They posited ideas and theories, they questioned elements of the theory of Evolution that can't be explained, that intelligent design explains better. Mostly they questioned why a rational person, calling themselves a scientist, would limit the debate on actual scientific process and evidence.
On the other side? The Evolutionists called the other side a lot of names, and did not offer any scientific argument as to why their word should be taken as gospel, or as to why the debate should not be made. Instead they said that a book written in 1859, before we had any idea what a cell actually was, what DNA actually was, what ameno acids, proteins and all that were required for life, that book was the be all and end all of how life has developed since the beginning of time. Sounds to me a lot like the bunch that tried to lynch Gallileo for positing the idea that the Sun did not in fact revolve around the earth.
Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Oct 29, 2008 15:07:54 GMT -5
I have very little interest in seeing that one. Not so much because it's a swipe at religion, but because Bill Maher is an egotistical, blow hard prick, so I have pretty strong doubts about the relevance of anything he might have to say. What exactly makes you think that? Not that I doubt it or anything. It's just that it's very hard to judge someone when you don't know them, and only a handful of their actions are known to you. |
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 29, 2008 16:53:54 GMT -5
True. But with public figures, making a public film, it is generally safe to assume that their public persona will be the one they approach the film with. Perhaps I should have said that Bill Maher, in his public persona, is an egotistical, blow hard prick. I don't know about personally, but the movie isn't personal, it's public.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Oct 29, 2008 18:07:32 GMT -5
I think you've made some rather unfair claims about Darwinian evolution and Planned Parenthood. Claims made by the film. First of all, Darwinian evolution has no part in the Nazi Antisemitism or the Holocaust. You'll find centuries of antisemitism in Germany, and indeed Europe, long before Darwin boarded the Beagle during the Middle Ages and the Reformation. (Sidenote: Hitler used religious reasons to justify his antisemitism. "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter". Doesn't sound like an atheist to me.)
In the United States, eugenics was actually quite a popular idea, held by many people, including those who were religious (i.e. The Methodist Church). It should be noted that during this time, the United States was going through a second wave of immigration and many "Americans" thought that the immigrants were weak and feeble, thus unworthy of reproduction. Secondly, eugenics had a lot more supporters than Margaret Sanger, including Alexander Graham Bell. Then, it was popular belief that a government wouldn't go as far as genocide as a way of eugenics.
Darwin never advocated eugenics or government intervention in the human race in his life. His cousin thought of applying the concept to the human society and Darwin agreed with him, but dismissed his ideas of "social change". In fact, he said that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and selection in nature. The idea of eugenics and Social Darwinism came much earlier than Darwin, with Thomas Malthus and Hebert Spencer. Scientific theories should not be responsible for how they are used in nonscientific agendas. In addition, many people who claim Social Darwinism played a role in the Nazi atrocities never seem to think that Social Darwinism plays an important role in laissez-faire capitalism.
Planned Parenthood is an organization that provides reproductive health and maternal and child services to the public. It allows families to plan their future and allows women to have more choice than just be a breeding ground for their husbands. Although, as mentioned above, the founder of this programme, Margaret Sanger, was an advocate for eugenics, it was generally accepted by the American people until the discovery of the Nazi death camps. It was not designed to keep lower income families from having children, for at least with that specific goal in mind.
I am very interested to know where you got that information. But for the most part, it is possible to believe extraterrestrial life exists rather than God because the universe we live in is vast. The possibility that life might exist out there is probable. On the other hand, God, as defined in the Christian Bible, can not exist in the scientific realm because if that is true, there is many inconsistencies..which is an entire discussion on its own.
Once again, you're talking about a film that is very biased with editing. Many of the evolutionists were mislead into doing their interviews. Also a major flaw in this film is that it neglected to interview religious scientists. If you want a film that talks about evolution and intelligent designs, I recommend "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". I'm confident you can view this for free online. After all, it was made to inform people. Not distribute propaganda for profit.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 30, 2008 0:36:59 GMT -5
Please note, I did not specify the holocaust in this topic. I was referring to Hadima (sp?), where thousands of the mentally and physically disabled were murdered to keep them from reproducing. The people in Germany, responsible for the historical preservation, were the ones who stated the doctors responsible for this facility, as well as the government who supported the program, based the practice on Darwins Theory of Evolution. When specifically asked about some of the others you mention later as associated with Eugenics, the curator specifically stated it was Darwinism, not the other theories, that were used as justification. There is no unfair in scientific questioning. As to Planned Parenthood, the very early stated goals, if I recall correctly, and I admit I may not because I don't have the information handy, was to help eliminate the growth of the lower income population by giving easy access to birth control and abortion. Regardless of what reasoning you may apply to this, it is still social engineering that involves limiting reproduction in an unwanted segment of society.
I never said that this was not the case. I personally find the idea abhorrent, as, obviously, did many other citizens when confronted with the idea of what eugenics actually meant. Any diminishment in the value of life, for social or scientific reasons, will eventually lead to the opening for what happened later in Nazi Germany.
There was a specific quote, written by Charles Darwin, in the movie, that stated Darwin's thoughts on natural selection in the human race. This was not my interpretation, but a simple repetition of the thoughts he himself wrote in 1871. I never said that scientific theory is responsible for how it is used. People are responsible for how they use the knowledge they have. However, when scientists advocate a point of view, to the exclusion of all others, and utilize the government and academic establishment to assist them in suppressing debate, then science is responsible for that behavior, and should correct itself. How, exactly do you believe any kind of Dawinism plays a role in capitalism? Not saying you're wrong, just curious. And what, precisely, is Social Darwinism. I did not refer to that concept, and haven't the faintest idea of what it means. I was speaking strictly on the concept of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
I hit that earlier.
Richard Dawkin did not just deny the existence of the Christian God, but all Gods, which is fine. As far as where I got that information? From his own lips in the interview he gave in that film.
Of course I am talking about a film. And it was not biased, at least to start with. As for being misled, they are grown ups. They were aware they were doing interviews. They were aware they were doing interviews with Ben Stein, who is not particularly shy in his view points. They should have been better prepared to make their arguments. It did not neglect to interview religious scientists. There was a pretty decent mix of religious and non-religious intelligent design proponents. Now, why should I believe the the movie you recommend would be any less biased than you claim this one to be? And aside from coming to the determination at the end that there is an effort on the part of the current scientific structure to discourage free expression on this particular topic, where did you find bias? Or, have you seen the film?
Drat. Caunion, I apologize. I'm not used to having the modify button at the top, and I hit that instead of the quote button, thus tweaking your post instead of posting a new one. I'll try to go back and fix it during my next smoke break, but I'm not sure I'll get the quotes from my post right. Sorry about that. Your comments should be intact however, as I broke them up, but didn't delete any of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Oct 30, 2008 5:36:57 GMT -5
It's all done. Gotta love copy and paste.
I'll get to your post eventually. Unfortunately I have a biology test to study for.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 30, 2008 13:34:57 GMT -5
Thank you. This was the first time I'd had a chance to sit down to work on it. Lovely not to have to.  Good luck on the bio test! |
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Nov 2, 2008 18:38:35 GMT -5
Right. So I went out and saw Expelled. Personally I thought it was just sheer propaganda. I wasn't really far from the truth when I said it was as reliable or informative as "The Birth of a Nation" or "The Eternal Jew". First of all, the person who talked about crystals carrying life to Earth was not Richard Dawkins, but a Michael Ruse, who is a philosopher of science. And the entire crystal can be explained that the lattice structure in clay crystals may have served as templates for the lattice structure in organic molecules. Of course, while Ben Stein is intrigued by what the intelligent design proponents were saying, he immediately mocks Ruse, who has much more experience than some of the people that Stein supports, and this theory, which is undergoing research. Also Michael Ruse was trying to explain it to the common people. So I think it was a bit unfair to bash him about. (http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/evolution) Second of all, Stein originally was trying to show the people who were discriminated for their beliefs in intelligent design. (This link should tell you what really happened to those people: www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth) So why bring up the Holocaust/Nazism to this at all? If Stein's original purpose was to bash evolution into dust, then all right, bring up evolution and how, somehow, it caused both communism AND fascism. But if you're trying to show freedom of inquiry, then frankly I don't see how it relates at all. Which goes on to say how I think this film is biased. Thirdly, I was right about him not interviewing anyone who believed in both religion and evolution. They actually do exist. But when you're trying to say you can't have evolution and science without God, that kinda kills the point, doesn't it? Fourthly, yes, the atheist evolutionists that Stein used in his film were actually misled. They thought they were being interviewed for a film called Crossroads. The full details lay here: www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/background/interview-tacticswww.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?hpAnd finally. Yes, Social Darwinism can be linked to laissez-faire capitalism QUITE simply. How? Well, this is how: Social Darwinists believes in the survival of the fittest, right? Well, under laissez-faire capitalism, the businesses are allowed free rein in the economy. No income taxes, nothing to stop from reaching the top. What happens? Smaller business are crushed under much larger businesses. Sounds an awful like Darwinian evolution to me. |
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Nov 2, 2008 21:00:40 GMT -5
Two notes, as I don't have time tonight to research you links.
First, I did not state in that quote that it was Mr. Dawkin that proposed the crystal theory. I stated that it was one theory put forth, and the Mr. Dawkin proposed a different theory based on the idea of an advanced alien society seeding earth with life. The gentleman who proposed the crystal theory did a very poor job of articulating his idea, so, if he was trying to explain it to "the common people" as you put it, so he failed to make his point. Your explanation was simple, straightforward, and relatively easy to understand. I don't particularly believe that's how life came to be, but it's certainly an avenue worth exploring if the research shows there's a sound scientific basis for the theory.
As to laissez-faire capitalism, there is no such structure, here or anywhere else. There are taxes, and while the conservatives advocate keeping them low to remain competitive in a world market, they don't advocate eliminating them. And there are anti-trust laws to keep monopolies from crushing new businesses unfairly. By the same token however, there is also nothing wrong with the idea that business that run on innovation, sound business practices, and competition will succeed where businesses run without those principles should and will fail. Perhaps there is a link to the idea of survival of the fittest, but you will note that I never said I didn't believe that principle to be applicable to the laws of nature, human or otherwise. Animals are competitive by nature. Capitalism embraces that to allow people to reach whatever potential they seek to reach, regardless of any inherent flaws the individual might have. Darwinism when applied to the individuals themselves is an entirely different endeavor. It calls for the "fit" in society to seek to destroy the "unfit" in an effort to advance the race. Not quite the same thing.
|
|
