Movie Review: Expelled
posted at 3:00 pm on April 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
While at CPAC in February, I had an opportunity to attend an advance screening of the new documentary, Expelled: The Movie. Ben Stein focuses on a perceived lack of intellectual freedom afforded to those who either believe in or investigate Intelligent Design theories in the scientific community. I wrote the following review at the time; the producers may have made some changes since, but I don’t believe it would change the thrust of my review. I plan on seeing the theatrical release this weekend, and would recommend it to everyone as at least a way to discuss the values and limitations of scientific inquiry and intellectual openness in American Academia.
The bloggers at CPAC received an invitation to screen a new documentary on academic intolerance called Expelled: The Movie this evening. The documentary features Ben Stein on a quest to understand the near-hysteria caused by scientists who so much as broach the idea of intelligent design in papers or in research. It follows Stein as he interviews professors denied tenure, editors fired, and journalists shunned for touching the subject even at its most innocuous levels.
Before discussing my feelings about the film, which is still in post-production and will not go into release until April, I should explain my approach to the ID/evolution debate. I believe evolution is demonstrably proven in enough examples to say that its effect on variation in species cannot be denied. The example I used tonight in discussing this with another viewer (certainly not the only example) is antibiotic effects on bacteria. Antibiotics that kill 99% of bacteria eventually promote the survival and the expansion of the 1% that resist them, created superbacteria that require another set of antibiotics to cure, and so on.
That said, evolution does not interfere with my faith in God. God certainly could have created the universe with a design that included life. The rational laws of nature would include evolution, as well as the myriad of other rational and mathematically provable mechanisms that undergird nature. In fact, the impulse of man to discover the rational laws of nature began with the belief in a rational God, as scientists understood nature’s rationality to reveal an intelligent Creator.
I’d go deeper than that, but Dinesh D’Souza covers it nicely enough already in his book What’s So Great About Christianity, and it’s getting late enough as it is. Suffice it to say that evolution doesn’t present a threat to my worldview.
Rationally, we have to admit that some use ID as an excuse to teach the more literal form of Creationism that has been used to argue against evolution entirely, especially against teaching evolution in primary-school classrooms. That admission does not appear in Expelled, which is a glaring omission. It tends to take out of context the frustration some scientists have about ID, and its place in polarizing the debate over its use. Properly framed, ID accepts all of the science without accepting its transformation into its own belief system.
What do I mean by that? In this, the film does an excellent job of demonstrating atheism as a belief system. Atheism as represented by Richard Dawkings and others in this film gets exposed as exactly the kind of belief system they claim to despise. They can’t prove God exists — and they can’t prove God doesn’t exist. They make the common fallacy of arguing that absence of evidence amounts to evidence of absence.
But in a way, this is all secondary to the real issue of the film: academic intolerance. The debate over ID vs Darwinism sets the table for a truly disturbing look at academia. Science should be about the free debate and research of ideas and hypotheses for duplicable results and provable theorems. However, as the examples Stein and the film provide amply show, the Darwinist academic establishment will brook no dissent from the orthodoxy — and scientists have to be shown with hidden faces to speak to the issue for the film.
Amusingly, Stein asks people how the first cell came to be. None of the scientists could give him a straight answer. Dawkins himself admits he doesn’t know and that no one else does, either — but postulates that aliens could have brought life to this planet, and then postulates that another alien civilization could have brought life to that planet, and so on. He then concedes that one entity could have been the original source … but insists that entity could not possibly have been God. For this he gives absolutely no evidence at all, relegating it as a belief system somewhat akin to Scientology.
All of this is extremely effective, as are the many allusions made to the Berlin Wall during the film. The theme runs throughout, and it explicitly refers to the defensive academic establishment as having built a wall that tramples on freedom of thought and discourse. Less effective is the heavy references to the Nazis in the movie. Although emotionally affecting for some obvious reasons, the fact is that while the Nazis were mostly Darwinists (along with a lot of other things), the vast majority of Darwinists aren’t Nazis. Certainly the eugenicists in Nazi Germany were mightily influenced by Darwinism, but America had its own eugenicists, which the film points out.
I should point out that the film has not finished production, and that changes will be made between now and its release in April. The filmmakers just completed an interview with Christopher Hitchens and will include it in the final cut. I believe other changes may be made which could address some of the criticisms I’ve written here.
Overall, though, the film presents a powerful argument not for intelligent design as much as for the freedom of scientific inquiry. If scientists get punished for challenging orthodoxy, we will not expand our learning but ossify it in concrete. Expelled: The Movie is entertaining, maddening, funny, and provocative, and well worth your time.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 24 Next »
900! I’m going to bed.
Wise Golden on April 19, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Goofing, and some chain yanking. I don’t think there are a lot of spacemen in modern synthesis.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Oh ok, ill throw some more links here which no creationist/”intelligent” design person will read.
Evidence of common descent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Level of support for Evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
Objections to evolution: (with counterpoints)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_just_a_theory.2C_not_a_fact
Oh and perhaps the greatest link, that ALL creationists should consult before looking very very silly, is this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:10 AM
String theory, now that’s some crap science. Keeps the boys busy when they’ve pushed physics to the limits of testability.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 12:12 AM
You Lost me at “Wiki” Dude… Even “I” can write a Wiki about anything (and I have written one BTW) and granted theres a lot of good stuff there by a lot of smart people, but WIKI? Really? thats where you pulled references from?
And for the record I believe that science has observed plenty of good and true process’ including Micro-evolution, My problem is EXCLUDING God. For which no one can seem to prove or disprove the existence of. Just bringing up the question brings up the Ire in folks who don’t believe, thats the part that gets me. for me if ya don’t believe then live and let live ya know? I may think yer wrong but I wouldn’t fire from a college ya know?
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 12:15 AM
@ WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Wow, you took next to no time to crack. You are already at the point where you could care less what we call God as long as we believe in it. Within a week, I could have you worshiping the devil, LOL. But seriously, the old atheist parent argument is so old and again, childish. You want a nice counterpoint? The ONLY and that is ONLY reason you believe in this “God” is because someone indoctrinated you, whether it be your parents, or whether it be AA after your life went to hell. The ONLY reason someone believes in something like God is because they were forced into believing it. That is actually provable, unlike your accusation, in that your religion depends COMPLETELY upon whom you know and what religion they are. You are ONLY catholic because you grew up in America with catholic parents. If you were born in pakistan with Islamic parents, you would be worshiping Allah.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Aw Cran!
RushBaby on April 19, 2008 at 12:15 AM
last i heard, string theory was unraveling a little… but i could be wrong… maybe someone rewove it while i was busy doing other things
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 12:18 AM
@ WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 12:15 AM
That is the most common response, as you could search this thread and find where I pointed out religious people will attack the source, not the information. The crap on wiki is more accurate than ANY OTHER encyclopedia ever written. Sure you could deface a topic, but it will be fixed in no time. All edits are recorded and observed. Why dont you try reading the links and THINKING about that they are saying. I have no problem if you want to incude God in YOUR interpretation of evolution or the history of man. But dont you try and teach that in the schools. You turn it like I am invading your privacy by arguing with you. My side isnt the one trying to shove non-science into science classrooms. My side doesnt have the supreme court having to rule against us, and then just changing the name of the theory so we can push it again. That is the religious fundamentalists that are doing that.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Heh. I thought it was a clever play on the Golden Gate.
Jaibones on April 19, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Hey saintOlaf, did you ever ask forgiveness for casting those disparaging remarks to people you do not know? You are doing the devils, you little satan you. How does it feel to be a little devil…
You still on that wiki kick? You mean where evolution is backed up by a jury in the court room…like OJ’s jury?
Did you know that hundreds of scientists have committed themselves to the “fact” that man has created global warming? I guess you believe that also…
Didn’t I give you the link, and you said you wouldn’t read them?…so we have a little catch-22, I give you a link of scientific explanation regarding evolution, and you said you won’t read them…therefore they don’t exist. Oh yeah, because they were posted on a website that was pro ID, now where else would you find a pro ID…that’s like being surprised to find Reagan quoted on HotAir, but not being found on the DailyKos. Where do you go to find out about conservative politics, the DNC website??? Sheeeesh.
right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 12:20 AM
God is not within the scope of science. And engineering, and all kinds of other stuff. That does no harm to religion, theology, or science.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 12:22 AM
right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Good points. It’s a fallibility fight between Wiki and the Bible. Choose sides.
Cold Steel on April 19, 2008 at 12:23 AM
@right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 12:20 AM
I NEVER said I wouldnt read them, go back and look at the post. I said that posting something attacking evolution from a creationist website is akin to posting something anti-holocaust from a nazi website. That is really close to my quote. Since you have COMPLETELY taken my quote out of context, you just look silly. Also, this is very different from you refuting an encyclopedia, especially one that YOU as an “informed” member on the topic can go and freely edit with of course your work reviewed by hundreds if not thousands on the topic. I found a WONDERFUL new website by the way, give me ANY attack on evolution and I will show you how you are wrong within 5 mins.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:25 AM
It wasn’t that as much as already knowing the answers to those specific questions you answered. Questions are better than statements in that questions requires one to think about the possible answers. Then sometimes individuals will actually research and meditate to come to a conclusion.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 19, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Explain. Are you asserting that God is not within or a part of these pursuits?
Cold Steel on April 19, 2008 at 12:26 AM
oh spam, i have to jump in on that one…
“forced” to believe? i can understand if you said that a person’s beliefs were influenced by the household they grew up on. Catholic for a Catholic household, Muslim for a Muslim household.
but what does it mean when a person grows up in a (insert religion here)household and then decides to follow another path? were they “forced” too?
were you raised Catholic/Muslim/Jew/Buddhist and forced to disbelieve?
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 12:27 AM
PrettyD_Vicious on April 19, 2008 at 12:26 AM
I understand. Don’t mean to preach to the choir. You’re right though; truth comes through study, meditation, prayer, and application.
Cold Steel on April 19, 2008 at 12:28 AM
I aint cracked a bit!!! Im trying to find some common ground but I just seem to be pissing ya off further *Shrug* I also aint calling you all “satanists” and telling you all yer going to hell. (I’ll probably be on the bullet train there before y’all hee hee)
I know what I believe and I Know why I believe it. nuff said :)
what “I” was talking about is what “YOU ALL” call god not what “I” call him :) I am not projecting like you are. you are calling me a “Religionist” because of “YOUR” experience with religious people and you are assuming what I believe. If that satisfies you … then Groovy. At least I am willing to listen to you. you have already determined that I am of no value to be heard because I follow something that was taught to me. okee-dokey… what were we talking about misplaced rage from forefathers again? again I don’t wanna piss ya off further, and I really don’t like to argue for fun . so I’ll try to be a little more civil to ya and less snark , it is Friday however and I aint here to wrack my brain.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 12:28 AM
That’s a good example. If you understand scientific method you can see what’s wrong with AGW. Computer models are not science. Useful tools when you have other things going for you, but generating data in a computer is neither expiriment nor observation. Even if they were using good models, which they ain’t. You don’t need faith or trust in authority to deal with it. You just have to know how science works to tell what’s up.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 12:28 AM
PrettyD_Vicious and Coldsteel,
God is not as vague about our after life,(the new heaven and new earth and God’s Holy Mountain), as you imagine Him to be!
Read chapter 21 and 22
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021-22;&version=9;
Coldsteel,
God did not have a body of flesh and bones. That is heresy….it is absolutely un-Biblical!
When God said
..that does not mean man’s bodies of dust,our flesh and bones.
He created man out of dust. He was referring to His Spirit.
God is a Spirit and has no flesh and bones.
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 12:29 AM
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Taking it a step further: how does force address loyalty and allegiance? Once the Catholic-Buddhist escapes from the mosque at 18, what’s he going to do once he hits the town?
Cold Steel on April 19, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Naw, you guys would never force people to learn about quack science…
right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 12:31 AM
@ TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 12:27 AM
What happens when an atheist has a loving mother and father who aren’t religious? His example falls to crap as well. I was being devil’s advocate, and he was being an ass. So I was being an ass back. You want to way that the only reason an atheist exists is to rebel against their parents, I will say the only reason a religious person exists is because their parents brainwashed them.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:31 AM
900th! SPAN!
ThackerAgency on April 19, 2008 at 12:31 AM
What did Stephen see at his martyrdom? What did Christ do with His body after His resurrection and ascension?
Cold Steel on April 19, 2008 at 12:32 AM
@ right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 12:31 AM
YOu do know that global warming DOES exist and has been observed right? The only real question is whether its man made or not, which I believe it is not. We have been coming out of an ice age, and of course we would be warming up. I see nothing wrong with teaching this in the classrooms.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:33 AM
ok I see I’m ignorant and never have read Darwin, or dawkins or any other scientific papers. well, I hate to disapoint, but I have and I’m not attacking the source. I am not calling them liars. I am saying I believe (note the word BELIEVE) that there is more than what they are observing. do I have proof? no. Do I have evidence in my own experiences and observations that I have experimented with? yes. please don’t patronize me or call me ignorant. I have not called you those things and if my snark seemed to imply that then I apologize as that was not my intention.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Indeed. Science concerns itself with what can be said about nature. Not the supernatural. Science has nothing to say about God. Science will not answer moral questions. It’s scope is limited.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 12:34 AM
I was generalizing Kind of like they say you cant add apples and oranges? if you subclass them you can.
Oranges = fruit
Apple = Fruit
3 apples (fruit) + 2 (oranges) = 5 pieces of fruit
so sue me.
-Wasteland Man.
P.S. Yeah my math professors didn’t like me either hee hee.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM
@ WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 12:28 AM
I dont know which post you were reading of mine that made you come to those conclusions. All of my friends save for one are highly religious, and we have these debates all the time. I could care less what you believe in, and I hope you feel the same way towards me. I just dont like when people try and force their views on others. This happens a lot from religious people, whether it be in the science classrooms with intelligent design, or with abortion or with any of the other issues. I dont care if you believe in God, and YOU choose not to get an abortion, and YOU choose to teach your child that God made the world in 7 days or if YOU teach them to stay abstinent until they retire. Its when the fundamentalists try teaching it to MY kids that we have a problem.
*Note, I have no kids, yet.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM
hard to say… too many variables
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM
That’s trivially true. Science does not have the comprehensive mission of theology. They don’t really overlap on their questions except when primative and people think Pele makes the volcano erupt.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 12:39 AM
@ WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM
I seriously dont know where you are going with the fruit example, but you were either calling me a homosexual or trying to make me hungry. I’ll go with the second one to remain civil, lol.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Atheism is a belief system too. There is evolution to a certain extent, but I keep waiting and hoping that someday, my dogs will give birth to a fire breathing dragon. Alas, I don’t that that will occur anytime soon as I had the females spaded. Anyway, what I wanted you to read is the commentary by Dinish D’Souza and his take on how the belief system of atheism is promoted in science books.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/14/atheism_masquerading_as_science
It is not so much that we should include God in our science books as that we should take atheism out of our science books.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 19, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Said I was gonna call it a night, but got a few files copying, so while I wait:
Maxx,
The feathered dinosaur issue is a matter of paleontological record. Most of the time any traces of feathers and skin is destroyed by the processes that produce fossils in the first place, but once in a while we get lucky. Once in a while has turned up about a dozen and a half species of therapods with clearly visible imprints of feathers in the surrounding rock. Bob Bakker has some superb books about the entire issue, where he goes into great detail about the air sacs and hollows in many of these skeletons and how many species had developed feathers along roughly parallel lines. I have neither the time nor inclination to retype 900 pages of paleontological research verbatim for you.
On eyes – as it happens, information is added via mutation on a regular basis. As in, *all the time*. 99.9% of the time, these mutations are meaningless or detrimental. Hemophilia is a mutation, and if we didn’t keep such people alive, they would die long before reaching procreation age, and the trait would become recessive, as it is in most of the human population. Eye color, hair color, and a thousand other physical traits – all mutations. We call them traits because they are effectively meaningless. Blue eyed people have no survival advantage over brown eyes.
But over billions of years, or even the lifetime of a species, a *lot* of these mutations occur. Once in a while, one of them is a clear survival advantage. Say, eyes in an early feline that can see a bit better at night than the other felines. This one is able to hunt better, becomes stronger, and sires the most cubs. Gradually this advantageous trait is spread through the gene pool. Pretty soon the felines *without* that train are outcompeted. Evolution in action. “But,” you yell, “that’s just mutation within a species!” Why so it is. But now it’s a dominant one. Now we tack on another ten thousand such minor mutations and a million years of feline generations. By the time you reach the end point, the animal you end with is not the same one you started with – without any really dramatic, obvious change.
I think you truly do not comprehend the sheer scale of time we’re talking about here.
And sorry, if the other “proof” links you can throw out are as poorly conceived as those first two, don’t bother. A man is not a scientist simply because he declares that he’s invented a new field, and you surely don’t trust one on the internet who cannot even provide basic scholarly information.
Ultimately though, what we have here is simply people insisting that “evolution” is clearly wrong… without having the foggiest idea about how the theory actually works. And for the record Mr. Wise, if you’re going to refer to Darwin as an asshole (not a bit prejudicial there, are we?) and claim you learned “everything” about evolution… you could at least display some shred of evidence that you’ve actually even *perused* his books. And that’d be a good *starting* point, as it is a theory that has been significantly revised since his day.
Please people, if you’re going to reject a scientific theory out of hand in favor of a text written by a multitude of authors and retranslated a dozen times, which is also clearly derivative of much earlier Sumerian theology – at least learn something beyond the simplistic pablum version taught in elementary school.
Oh dear, just had a flash to someone earlier saying that atoms are mostly made of “air”, and my migraine is making a comeback…
E1701 on April 19, 2008 at 12:42 AM
It is not, but athiests can have belief systems. Not the same thing.
Again, I feel I shoud point out that evolutionary theory pretty seriously rules out such things. Alas.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 12:44 AM
what happens to a child raised by loving atheists who decides to follow any religious practice? do they feel like failures? or are atheists by definition better people than that? as opposed to religious parents, i mean.
u also seem to feel that indoctrinating a child to believe in a particular religion is “brainwashing” while teaching a child to believe in no religion is enlightened.
bitter much?
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Hell Ya! thats what Im talking about!
Ya know no one can Force you to believe anything. and that aint my intention I just find it sad when folks wont debate. my atheist generalization was NOT pointed directly at you. but I have had many friends who were close to becoming priests and such then became disillusioned with religion in general (usually due to one of their heroes in their church disappointing them in one way or another) and then they fall away into disbelief I have seen this time and time again with at least 3 people of the top of my head and more if I was to study upon it.
I am not here to tell you to: “REPENT SINNER!” I am throwing out my opinions and perhaps unfortunately yer the one who picked up on them. hee hee although it has been lively :D
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 12:45 AM
@ PrettyD_Vicious on April 19, 2008 at 12:40 AM
I am well versed in D’Souza, and I find a lot of his arguments very flawed. I did like his debate against Hitchens though, but then again you can probably guess who i thought won that one. Those quotes from that article were from textbooks explaining the transition from the thoughts of the time, when evolution was emerging as a theory. He takes the quotes out of context and argues they are anti-religious and thus pro-atheist. Mentioning that it is evolution, not God which created the species, is tantamount to the understanding that the common thought of man up until darwin was that God had created all life.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:46 AM
what?
you mean like as depicted in “inconvenient truth”?
there is only one reason to teach this the way it is being taught.
and it isn’t to tell people that there is “climate change”
i grew up in Minnesota. the climate changed every friggin day.
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Feathers are one thing… a chicken has feathers… so do pinguins.
how the hell did the others learn to fly? did Bernoulli teach em?
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 12:49 AM
I agree that I have a problem when atheist teach my kids that promiscuity is good and should be indulged in.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 19, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Oh, Saint Olaf knows a lot of this kind of stuff. Although he sees many things in the Bible that others don’t, he is at the same time a literalist, and says that no species can branch out into two other species, that “a worm will always produce a worm, and a dog will always produce a dog”, meaning that Noah put into his gopher-wood boat not only two of every unclean (and seven of every clean) animal now alive, but also of those that existed as of Genesis chapter six (which, as the world was created on the 1st September, 5509 BC, is not that long ago). (I really should have asked him how many have gone extinct since Noah.) At any rate, that’s a lot of animals in a 300-by-50-by-30-cubit space.
What’s his fear in all of this?
This, even though many of us (even without going as far as Marcion) do believe in Jesus Christ, even while taking the Old Testament with many a grain of salt. (In the case of the Noah story, a grain or two of sea-salt.)
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 12:49 AM
@ TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 12:44 AM
I am not saying that I believe any of that. I do think that some parents take the teachings of the bible too far with their kids, and then you get things like Westboro baptist church or Islamic fundamentalists. And you cannot equate the teaching of a subject to a child with the lack of teaching anything to a child. Teaching a child to believe in God can NEVER be equated with avoiding religion altogether. There is no “believing in no religion”, there is simply no believing.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Best leave that to believers?
exception on April 19, 2008 at 12:50 AM
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Looks like you were a little off from your attack on me, you are now saying you did read it?…you know what I meant, and I know what you meant…you coy little boy. I gave you a link of a scientist, read it and if you have problems with the science then cry about it. But don’t whine that it isn’t posted on some evolutions promoting website, because it won’t be.
Now you are being “coy” again. You know exactly what I mean when I say global warming is a farce, and you know what I linked is not about teaching the natural cycles of weather…please that makes you look foolish.
BTW, some people, not me, but some use the word “coy” as a code word for stupid.
right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 12:51 AM
@ PrettyD_Vicious on April 19, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Well then get your kids out of the class if you think they are being taught wrong. No one is forcing them to be there, especially if there is an evil atheist telling your daughter to go whore herself out, which I HIGHLY doubt is happening. But then again, maybe its abstinence teaching that is the reason why catholics are the most divorced people in the USA. It is 100% up to you as a parent to decide that.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Why did he use the plural?
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 12:52 AM
@ right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 12:51 AM
It seems we all have our little codewords. You use coy, I use childish. YOU use little boy, I use silly. Either way, we are both calling each other effing morons. I forget what we were even arguing about 12 freaking hours ago, care to update me?
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Now where is that asking of forgiveness from SaintOlaf the Christian?
He claims to speak and live the words of Christ, but when called upon to do so he hides…look likes his faith his a little weak in spirit.
He calls others out, but when he is chosen to perform acts of a Christian he slinks away. Gives Christians a bad name…
right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Now you are being honest with us.
Evolution does have it’s roots in sumerian theology.
If you knew anything about Sumerian theology…you would clearly know that they worshipped the fallen angels!
The same fallen angels who bred with humans and created Nephilim’s(Giants).
Yes Satan is the father of lies!
And yes evolution is straight from the mouth of satan.
But you still think it’s a good thing and true right?
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 12:56 AM
uhmm surely you’ve heard of this idea of a triune God? You know Father, Son, Spirit? Don’t event try to ask for and exmple of how to explain how God can be all three at one time. It can’t be explained in this dimension. It’s a God thing, we can’t understand.
jdog on April 19, 2008 at 12:56 AM
“Using logic and reason isnt enough, you have to be a dick everyone who doenst think like you”
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Olaf, this video proves there’s evolution.
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 12:57 AM
@ SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Are you for real? Seriously, where do you get this crap?
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Arrgghhh!! I got ricrolled!
jdog on April 19, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Golden.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 12:59 AM
ColdSteel,Right2Bright,
Do you really want to get iunto the mormon theology debate on this thread?
I will debate with you about whether God the Father has a body of flesh and bones on another thread.
Pick one.
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 12:59 AM
BTW SaintOlaf, I LOVE that your name is an homage to the Golden Girls. It fits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Olaf%2C_Minnesota
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 1:00 AM
And part of him likes to talk to himself?
And yes, I’ve heard of a triune god. The Hindoos have had one god with a thousand faces since before it could be remembered (since 5508 BC?), but the idea was formally introduced to one part of Christianity in 325 AD.
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 1:02 AM
well, i do have kids and my main goal isn’t to “force” them to believe anything other than that they are in control of their minds and that they will ultimately be responsible for their actions.
i am more worried about Atheists (I use the A to indicate that it is indeed a religion, so sorry) and Environmentalists (both of which are tantamount to religions nowadays) and Socialists and Islamists than I am in someone telling my child to not engage in poor lifestyle choices.
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 1:02 AM
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Truth is truth O. It’s Biblically based brother. I didn’t quote you from the Book of Mormon. I asked you about Stephen’s martyrdom and you’ve yet to answer.
Cold Steel on April 19, 2008 at 1:02 AM
YOU ROck the Modern world LOL!!!!!!
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 1:03 AM
@ TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 1:02 AM
What worries you about atheists? What could you possibly worry about? Our crime rates are lower. OUr divorce rates are lower. What could you be “worried” about? Do you think an evil atheist will sneak up behind you and squeeze your tushy and infect you with the ghay or something?
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 1:04 AM
So you’re agreed then, God the Father and God the Son are separate, and the latter does have a body. Right?
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 1:04 AM
That’s another thing the satanists at national geographic are famous for..destroying evidence of giant skeletons and anything else that disproves their non-scientific official state religion of evolution!
Yes giant skeletons have been found all over the world!
Every single culture on earth has stories about them.
http://www.s8int.com/giants2.html
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 1:05 AM
@ Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 1:04 AM
And of course the body is made of Ritz crackers.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 1:05 AM
He wasn’t talking to himself he was talking to us.
jdog on April 19, 2008 at 1:06 AM
and yet he scoffs at Fossil Theory?
Oy and Vey together again….
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Wasteland Man,
The dinosaurs existed for 240 Million Years. Can you even *fathom* that span of time? By every realistic accounting, they were wildly more successful than we are. Here we’re going on barely two million years as hominids and barely 5,000 as a civilization, and we’re already declaring we’re the pinnacle of things.
Again: Evolution does not play favorites.
Most dinosaurs with feathers never flew. Never could fly, never did. No more than chickens, or penguins or ostriches. But some of the small ones, with sufficiently low body mass, sufficiently large “wings” and developed enough guide feathers, at some point found they could *glide*. Asking how they figured this out is meaningless – unless you want to go interview a flying squirrel. Some figured out how to do it better, and passed on *their* genes… and over many millions of years of trial and error and dead ends, you wound up with one that could actually gain altitude by flapping its arms. And during the next forty million years, the successful ones formed the foundations of what were almost post-KT birds… how and what paths they took, we don’t know, and we don’t pretend to… that’s not what science is about.
Suffice that they did. Then the Mesozoic comes to an end. And not in Jeff Goldblum “nature chose them for extinction” fashion – they got whacked with a great big damned rock. Books have been written on this extinction. Suffice to say, 70% of all land species go extinct. This includes nearly all of those nice feathered dinosaurs. Pretty much any land animal with the body mass bigger than a small rat starved to death in the nuclear winter. The small, flight-capable former-dinosaurs *could* survive, along with several shrew-like mammals (who we can call great-great-10e24-gramps), plants with hardy seeds, etc.
But with the evolutionary bush having gotten a once-over with the weedwhacker from hell, there were a lot of ecological niches open for the taking. As the forests grew back and the meadows grew out, you started to have enough food for big animals. And sure enough, in a few million years, life filled those niches.
If the asteroid Apophis splatters us in 2036, the same thing will happen once again… only a lot more animals will survive. We’re a bit fragile for that, so we will probably not be among them.
E1701 on April 19, 2008 at 1:06 AM
I made a post some moments ago with some links to some other examples of this kind of stuff from Olaf. But it has a bunch of links and for some reason the computer here always takes a long time to post those (probably to avoid spamming). But it’s coming. The guy is… well, he’s a Huckabite.
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Also, why was Moses not allowed to look on God’s personage but only see the burning bush that was not consumed. See Exodus 3:3-7
PrettyD_Vicious on April 19, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Straight outta Constantinople, sucka.
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 1:07 AM
@ SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 1:05 AM
You have to be doing a satire of an insane person. How does anything in the article you linked to show evolution is wrong?
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 1:08 AM
As you go about your day taunting Christians, remember a few things (although I suspect you are very very young so these may not mean much to you now).
Thank people of faith for these things:
If ever ( and I hope never) you need a hospital;If ever you go to a school of higher education, thank a person of faith and more then likely a Christian.
Next time you are ill, go to the nearest atheist built hospital, or if you want to educate your children sent them to the University the atheists built, you won’t find them.
At night tens of thousands of homeless people sleep in churches, tens of thousands are fed, abused women with children are housed, and in a natural disaster often the first to arrive to assist are faith based organizations. The Baptists have a cargo plane on standby with a warehouse full of medical and relief supplies to fly any where in the world to assist those…and the atheist plane is sitting where?
You see you can sit on the sideline and call Jesus a Zombie, and humiliate people of faith…but they will never let you or their fellow man down in a time of need. A church door is always open to you or a family member…always. Not perfect, but a church strives to be. I have never seen an atheist organization take on any single project worthy of note…yet they (you) freely partake in what people of faith have created for you to enjoy (and give back so little)…it is true, when you give something so freely it is more often taken for granted and not appreciated.
Someday, as you grow in wisdom, you will see the wonder of what a faith driven society can create…as opposed to a secular driven one.
right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 1:09 AM
So God (whose name in Hebrew is plural) says to us that he and we should make man in our image? Are you sure?
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Now I feel like I’m getting punked…
exception on April 19, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Can I fathom??????? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Can I Fathom? DAAAAAAAAAAH Gee Professor TRekinstein I dun think I can DAAAAAAAAAAAH!
-Wasteland Man.
P.S. Thats all I got through from your dissertation, if I wanted to be condecended too I can find that on a hundred other threads. Scroll Up.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 1:11 AM
r u kidding? loving parents who raise an atheist child did so by teaching that child “nothing”?
a belief system is a belief system… i’m not sure how you are getting your mind to swerve around that obstacle. Atheism is a religion. It is a belief system that has followers and people who defend its principles. people who don’t like religion are fooling themselves if they think otherwise.
if you are saying that you don’t follow any belief system other than one of your own making. that is fine by me. but you will still find, if you examine it, that all its basic tenets come from somewhere. unless you think that all the rules with which you live your life are of your own unique origin. if that is true, you are an amazing person. almost God like, in fact.
perhaps you should consider the origin of your animus.
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 1:12 AM
ColdSteel,Right2Bright,
What are you talking about? Mormon theology, who mentioned that? Are you hitting the bottle?
right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 1:12 AM
I don’t have the time to read all 10 pages of comments already posted, but I wanted to comment on this anyway.
I don’t believe in God, but I still plan on going to see this movie. As a student of science (Computer Science) at a liberal university, I have personally witnessed this sort of thing happening to other students. While I agree that people who believe in God are probably wrong, I do not support the intolerace of some of my peers towards religion, and especially religious scientists. Christianity is not necessarily incompatible with science.
Dinesh D’Souza, the author mentioned in the review, does do a great job reconciling the differences between science and religion. I had the pleasure of meeting him personally earlier this month when, as a member of the Republican club at my university, I helped work to brgin him to my school to give a lecture. While his speech did not focus on religion, he did touch on this topic briefly.
Eric12470210 on April 19, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Name some of those principles?
exception on April 19, 2008 at 1:14 AM
@ right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Are you for real? ITs called being human, not being religious. Hospitals weren’t built because of religion. The people that staff them arent chosen for their religion. Why WOULD there be an atheist plane? Atheists arent actively trying to spread their way of thought. Religions have ALWAYS gone to help those in need, but usually also try and get them to join their organization. I have never said religious people arent nice or arent kind. You are mistaking everything that I said. I just dont want your ideas, crazy or not, being forced upon me. Every single one of your examples can exist without religion. There is no need to include God in ANY of those situations. Remember as well, atheists make up what percentage of the population?
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 1:15 AM
I tried to make that point a few hundred posts back to no avail… good post of yours though probably more succinct than mine.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 1:16 AM
I think we must be, exception – the idea that Olaf is a living stereotype is too frightening to contemplate.
Wasteland, if you don’t want to be condescended to, do some research. I’m practically typing up “Evolutionary Theory for Dummies” here, and people who insist they know all about it are throwing every logical fallacy and strawman argument in the book at me. I’m tired, I’m cranky, and I’m done.
E1701 on April 19, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Re Olaf (et Talium):
Ammianus Marcellinus, looking at Christianity from without, said back in the fourth century that he “had found by experience that no wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another” (22.5.4).
Tzetzes on April 19, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Just got back form the movie and thought it was very good. A little heavy on the Nazi imagery but well argued and informative.
By they way I have never seen this many comments on HA before. New Record?
knat on April 19, 2008 at 1:16 AM
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Not that article, but read all 20 pages of that section for proof of Giants skeletons…tzetzes will have fun at S8int for days.
It is a fact that national geographic etc. censors evidence to keep their non scientific state run religion going.
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 1:17 AM
@ TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 1:12 AM
This is the current tactic of religious people, to try and equate everything they argue against to religion. Evolution is a religion, atheism is a religion. Atheism is not a religion. In fact its the antithesis of religion. It is the lack of belief. It is the understanding that there is absolutely no evidence for God, and in fact, the chance that he exists and the logical steps it would take for him to exist are such that belief in him is absurd. Trying to equate this to a religion is silly.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 1:18 AM
LOL. no… i wasn’t aware of the rampant ghayness in the Atheist community.
don’t care either way anyway…
funny thing is, you are making assumption about me while at the same time clarifying exactly where you are coming from.
I don’t care if an Atheist tells my child that there is no God. I couldn’t care less about that. As I said, my main goal is to teach them to think for themselves. They will decide what to believe or reject. Including your religion.
Why does it seem to bother Atheists so much that others choose to believe in a different religion? Smells kind of like extreme Islam to me…
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 1:18 AM
@ PrettyD_Vicious on April 19, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Well then get your kids out of the class if you think they are being taught wrong. No one is forcing them to be there, especially if there is an evil atheist telling your daughter to go whore herself out, which I HIGHLY doubt is happening. But then again, maybe its abstinence teaching that is the reason why catholics are the most divorced people in the USA. It is 100% up to you as a parent to decide that.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 12:52 AM
That is a poor response. You stated you didn’t want fundamentalist teaching your kids and I assume in a public school setting. If only the benevolent government wouldn’t tax me to pay for the public school system that promote atheism. We all pay for the public school system, therefore, it is not right for them to teach either, but the public school system usually teaches moral behaviors that I and many other parents do not agree with.
Of course, this is a recent evolution of the school system. Public schools were once ran by the community that they resided in. If you didn’t like the school you could move to a community that taught the values that reinforced what values were taught in the home.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 19, 2008 at 1:18 AM
@ SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 1:17 AM
You check out this site too, it debunks ALL of the creationists arguments using, *GASP* facts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Again generalizing but…
1. There is no God.
2. we are random occurances in the universe.
3. there is no after life.
4. there is no such thing as sin, it is a fairy tale.
etc. etc. etc.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 1:19 AM
then why all the Posts?
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 1:20 AM
really? you are doing a lot of typing for no reason then…
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Yeah, that keeps coming up. I don’t see it as a tactic so much as people dealing with things the way they know. Atheism has very little to say. There are other paths to conviction other than faith, and that is true for the religious as well.
exception on April 19, 2008 at 1:21 AM
@ PrettyD_Vicious on April 19, 2008 at 1:18 AM
And then the public schools were taken over by religions, such that theories like creationism and intelligent design were allowed in the classroom, completely violating the seperation of church and state. If you don’t like the morals being taught in your school, you can attend the school board meetings and voice your opinions all you want. You can also teach your children the morality that YOU think she/he should live their life by. Simply relying on the public school system to teach your child EXACTLY how you want them taught, and then being pissed when your special needs arent met is not a good way of going about it.
muyoso on April 19, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Wow sucks to defend your beliefs dont it? Think how hard it must be hard for those of us who partake in the opiate of the masses…
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on April 19, 2008 at 1:22 AM
read some of muyoso’s posts, or ask muyoso for that matter… best to go to the source.
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 1:22 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 24 Next »