# Must see movie!!!



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

Why???:smt017


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

Synopsizes CNS News:

"Expelled" calls attention to the plight of highly credentialed scholars who have been forced out of prestigious academic positions because they proposed Intelligent Design as a possible alternative to Charles Darwin's 150-year-old theories about the origins of life. Instead of entertaining a debate on the merits of competing theories, the scientific establishment has moved to suppress the ID movement in a "systematic and ruthless" way at odds with America's founding principles, the film asserts.

Liberals have been going ape about "Expelled" for months as it has been screened around the country.

*If liberials hate it then it must be good.*


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

OK now I got to see this. I'll be honest I pay no attention to what comes out of Hollyweird and haven't for years. I see one movie about every two years and that's with my grand daughter. :smt033


----------



## SuckLead (Jul 4, 2006)

Both sides are doing the same thing to the other. At least extremists on it. They both want both sides done away with. I'll be honest, I don't care if they teach both. And I'll probably be trout slapped, but I do fall along the Darwinian lines. If they want to teach both and let people choose, that's cool.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

:smt023


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

SuckLead said:


> Both sides are doing the same thing to the other. At least extremists on it. They both want both sides done away with. I'll be honest, I don't care if they teach both. And I'll probably be trout slapped, but I do fall along the Darwinian lines. If they want to teach both and let people choose, that's cool.


Though I'm a creationist I'm ok, sorta, with teaching both sides. The problem is that both sides are not taught equally because of the separation of church and state that some say exist in the constitution but is not there.


----------



## Arcus (Feb 13, 2008)

tnoisaw said:


> Synopsizes CNS News:
> ...plight of highly credentialed scholars who have been forced out of prestigious academic positions because they proposed Intelligent Design as a possible alternative..."


Highly credentialed by the University of Offshore Correspondence courses?
Sounds like they're in need of some remedial Biology classes...


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

tnoisaw said:


> because of the separation of church and state that some say exist in the constitution but is not there.


Errrr, it's right there in the First Amendment: _"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."_

In other words, the government keeps its hands off religion, neither pushing it nor prohibiting it. Since Creationism and Intelligent Design posit a supernatural being as the maker of all things, they are clearly religious. Since we're mainly talking about public schools, I think there's room for debate about teaching ID as an alternative to widely-accepted science. I honestly do not know how specific ID is in terms of suggesting a specific god made everything, so I don't know that it can be termed "a" religion. But it is _clearly_ a religious belief system.

I briefly listened to Sean Hannity try to explain his belief in Creationism/ID yesterday. He made no scientific sense, and just railed on about totally subjective things like beauty of sunsets and the ocean.

But then again, I'm one of those evil atheists that Ben Stein warned you about. :mrgreen:


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Errrr, it's right there in the First Amendment: _"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."_
> 
> In other words, the government keeps its hands off religion, neither pushing it nor prohibiting it. Since Creationism and Intelligent Design posit a supernatural being as the maker of all things, they are clearly religious. Since we're mainly talking about public schools, I think there's room for debate about teaching ID as an alternative to widely-accepted science. I honestly do not know how specific ID is in terms of suggesting a specific god made everything, so I don't know that it can be termed "a" religion. But it is _clearly_ a religious belief system.
> 
> ...


If you take your first amendment argument then, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that I am being prohibited from practicing my religion in a public school. The idea behind the first is that they (founding fathers) didn't want the government dictating what or who you could worship as happened to them in England by whom ever was King and what ever religion he was. It was not the prevention of as it is heading today.


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

SuckLead said:


> .... And I'll probably be trout slapped, ...


:anim_lol::anim_lol:
Thanks for the image.:anim_lol:
(in general that is, not person specific)


----------



## SuckLead (Jul 4, 2006)

tnoisaw said:


> If you take your first amendment argument then, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that I am being prohibited from practicing my religion in a public school. The idea behind the first is that they (founding fathers) didn't want the government dictating what or who you could worship as happened to them in England by whom ever was King and what ever religion he was. It was not the prevention of as it is heading today.


It really is a catch-22. I agree, you would, in a public school, be somewhat denied the right to practice your religion in this way. However, by teaching ID you open the flood gates to teaching every religion's version of the begining of time, otherwise it is unfair to them, also, according to that arguement. I am speaking as a Christian with a Christian education. I was taught both, but will admit that even in Christian schools, they spent more time on Darwin, which amazed me in some way. Public schools were set up to supply education regardless of religion, while religion backed schools obviously focus on religion. So pretty much, if you cover one in a public school, you have to cover them all.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Mike,

Wanna join my Darwinist Libertarian Party?

Damn, I knew I liked you...

It's funny how the ID crowd cannot believe that one species, man, could evolve into what it is, while others have just languished... And yet the whole basis of evolution is not RANDOM evolution at all, but evolution through survival of the *most *evolved random offspring. Therefore, random "improvements" survive, and random "deficiencies" perish. If you get lucky 3 or 4 times instead of once, your species VAULTS ahead when the math is done... Man has also simply been the first species to implement rudimentary technology. Technology bread greater technology... and we've seen what technology (nutrition, medicine, etc) has done to evolution... How tall are your children compared to your grand parents??? Is "God" making our children taller each generation? Is "God" putting laptops into the elementary schools?

Good night all...

JeffWard - Shaved Ape...

JeffWard


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

JeffWard said:


> Mike,
> 
> Wanna join my Darwinist Libertarian Party?
> 
> ...


Comparing your kids height to your grandparents is not evolution that's the advancement of health, ie. nutrition et. When kids start consistently spouting another arm or gills or something like that then I may concede that evolution exists.

What I have a hard time with is the beginning of it all. With me, as a Christian, it's easy: God created it all. I think evolutionist have much more faith than any creationist because they believe that something started from nothing. That's faith! Nothing plus nothing is...nothing.


----------



## PanaDP (Jul 20, 2007)

Hasn't it occurred to anyone that evolution theory and creationism aren't mutually exclusive? If there is a God, he could, and probably is smart enough to, allow us to evolve to best live in our current environment.


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

If religion is to be taught, all religion has to be taught. Your child will be taught Christianity, Wicca, Judaism, Islam, Satanism, Asatru, Hinduism, Cabala, Scientology,. Those are just off the top of my head. No religion can be excluded.


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

PanaDP said:


> Hasn't it occurred to anyone that evolution theory and creationism aren't mutually exclusive? If there is a God, he could, and probably is smart enough to, allow us to evolve to best live in our current environment.


Bingo!

I am not super religious, but I do believe there is a God, and I believe He created man and the creatures. I have a hard time believing that human beings and animals, as complex as we/they are, are a random mutation staring off from some one celled creature. I do however believe that creatures have evolved from the original design to best live in their environments.


----------



## bruce333 (Sep 1, 2006)

PanaDP said:


> Hasn't it occurred to anyone that evolution theory and creationism aren't mutually exclusive? If there is a God, he could, and probably is smart enough to, allow us to evolve to best live in our current environment.


or maybe give us a nudge in the right direction every few million years.

IMO they have no business teaching ID (or any other religous basis creationism) in a _science_ class. Bring it up in a religous class where it belongs.


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

I think the problem lies in when they teach Darwinism as *the one and only option *instead of a* possible *option.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Todd said:


> I think the problem lies in when they teach Darwinism as *the one and only option *instead of a* possible *option.


Well, it _is_ by far the most commonly-accepted explanation of human existence in the scientific community. Actual scientists who support the notion of ID are very few and far between, though apparently Ben Stein has dug up a few. I haven't seen the movie, however, so I don't know their credentials or background. My general opinion is that ID advocates have gotten it backwards, and are trying to rationalize their religious beliefs rather than seek the truth by scientific means.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

JeffWard said:


> Wanna join my Darwinist Libertarian Party?


Yes, but the first meeting I'll be able to attend will be in Orlando in 2009. I assume there is beer at DLP meetings...?


----------



## BeefyBeefo (Jan 30, 2008)

Jeff, I want a picture of Mike shooting your XD.:smt077:anim_lol:

-Jeff-


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Intelligent Design could be taught in certain types of courses......comparative religion......philosophy....etc.....but; It cannot be taught in a science class.....period.

It's not science. It makes no predictions and it is not falsifiable. Both of those conditions MUST be met in order to _Qualify _ as science.

You are free to believe it if you want......but you can't teach it in a science class.

That movie is a travesty beyond my ability to communicate it......Ben has fallen off his rocker.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

PanaDP said:


> Hasn't it occurred to anyone that evolution theory and creationism aren't mutually exclusive? If there is a God, he could, and probably is smart enough to, allow us to evolve to best live in our current environment.


Well......yes and no.

One is based on scientific evidence and the other is based on faith.

While it is certainly true there may be a God and that He/She/It could be responsible for creating the mechanisms for evolution, there is simply no way to prove that in a scientific manner. Again, one is science the other is faith; might not make them mutually exclusive, but there is also no way to combine them, at least not in a science class.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

Fred40 said:


> Intelligent Design could be taught in certain types of courses......comparative religion......philosophy....etc.....but; It cannot be taught in a science class.....period.
> 
> It's not science. It makes no predictions and it is not falsifiable. Both of those conditions MUST be met in order to _Qualify _ as science.
> 
> ...


Well said! :smt1099


----------



## PanaDP (Jul 20, 2007)

Fred40 said:


> Well......yes and no.
> 
> One is based on scientific evidence and the other is based on faith.
> 
> While it is certainly true there may be a God and that He/She/It could be responsible for creating the mechanisms for evolution, there is simply no way to prove that in a scientific manner. Again, one is science the other is faith; might not make them mutually exclusive, but there is also no way to combine them, at least not in a science class.


You're correct. I only mean that you shouldn't immediately discount evolution because of religious beliefs.

I grew up in a very scientific environment and I realize that creationism is in no way scientific in nature and has no place in the science classroom.


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Well, it _is_ by far the most commonly-accepted explanation of human existence in the scientific community. Actual scientists who support the notion of ID are very few and far between, though apparently Ben Stein has dug up a few. I haven't seen the movie, however, so I don't know their credentials or background. My general opinion is that ID advocates have gotten it backwards, and are trying to rationalize their religious beliefs rather than seek the truth by scientific means.


Really?

Here are a few I dug up. But I guess for some reason, they don't count as real scientists.

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918-2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915-1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892-1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Great job copying and pasting, but a lot of those people hold doctorates in fields only very loosely related to the topic. I mean, _food science_? :mrgreen:

Anyway, all those people together comprise only a very tiny fraction of the scientists on the planet.


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Great job copying and pasting, but a lot of those people hold doctorates in fields only very loosely related to the topic. I mean, _food science_? :mrgreen:
> 
> Anyway, all those people together comprise only a very tiny fraction of the scientists on the planet.


Cut and paste! What are you talking about? I knew all those names by heart. Just like all the Jeff Copper quotes you know by heart that you try to impress us with.


----------



## Wyatt (Jan 29, 2008)

I find it kind of amusing that a Jewish guy from Hollywood has the Christian fundamentalists rallying to provide marketing for his movie. :anim_lol:


----------



## Wyatt (Jan 29, 2008)

Duplicate post, my bad.


----------



## PanaDP (Jul 20, 2007)

Tnoisaw, that's a nice list. Now we'll just trim it down to people in fields that actually study evolution in depth:


tnoisaw said:


> * Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
> * Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
> * Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
> * Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
> ...


There. Now we have the list minus all those probably very intelligent people who, in all likelihood, probably haven't studied evolution theory since Biology 101 in undergrad. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, by the way. If I didn't know enough about a particular discipline or a discipline is not listed, I left the person in the list.

Truth is, these people are perfectly free to _believe_ in creationism. Truth is, there is not one of them that can present any evidence whatsoever to support that belief. Without facts and research, mathematics becomes numerology and astronomy becomes astrology. At the end of the day, facts and good controlled experiments are needed to bring creationism out of the realm of belief and into the realm of science.


----------



## Snowman (Jan 2, 2007)

The notion that you must be a biologist to dissent with evolution is foolish.

Let us set the stage for the aspiring Biology Ph.D. You are taught evolution as fact and rigorously tested on it throughout your undergrad career. You do your master's degree work under the supervision of a Darwinist. You would not think to dissent from this school of thought or else be ousted as ignorant. From there you earn your doctorate in biology having only been taught evolution as fact. You are certainly a believer by now. 

You can say "random" all you want to, but you must look outside of a biological perspective as well. Earth is an ideal distance from the sun. The most useful substance on this planet is also the most plentiful - water. 

There are a lot of people in this country who do not subscribe to this notion of "random life." It is only fair that their side be represented as well. All you have to do is teach the evolution side, and then say that a majority of others actually have a different theory.


Also, you do not have to teach every religion if you teach intelligent design. Is intelligent design a religion?


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

> "If we find the answer [the unified theory], it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for we would know the mind of God." - Stephen Hawking


Sorry, I'm a HUGE Stephen Hawking fan!

Anyway...

Personally, I believe in both creationism and evolution. One can't exist without the other.

As far as who's pulling the strings... something is. The universe is to complex to be just by chance. The same can be said about us... we can laugh, cry, love, hate, dream, feel pain...and so on. We all have different personalities. Something programed us to do and experience these things.

As for creationism and evolution being taught in schools... Teach both, but limited. All...well, most religions believe in a creator... don't get into the details, just leave it as that. On the other side of that, limit what can be taught about evolution...since alot of the science behind evolution is based upon theories anyway. A theory is not a fact, nor is a supreme creator to some.

As for the movie... I'll check it out. I like Ben Stein. :smt033


----------



## PanaDP (Jul 20, 2007)

Snowman said:


> The notion that you must be a biologist to dissent with evolution is foolish.


Of course you can disagree with evolution, no matter your educational background. What was posted was a list of supposedly credible scientists who support creationism. My point is that, if someone is going to be cited as an credible *authority* on the evolution/creationism debate, they must have the proper credentials to that point.

Would you trust the opinion of an astrophysicist on the topic of a certain new procedure in neurosurgery? Of course not. They have not undergone the proper education and study.

Just the same, I don't want to be told to believe a dentist, a plastic surgeon, or a food scientist (all of those were on the list; I deleted them) on the subject of evolution. They have not undergone the proper study on the subject.

Another couple things about that list: (1.) Since when is a philosopher a scientist? (2.)There are, I believe two, immunologists on the list. How can they in good conscience call themselves anything but staunch supporters of evolution? They see it, FIRSTHAND, every day in their work! *Not a day goes by* in the work of an immunologist where they don't see a new genetic mutation that makes an organism resistant or immune to a particular substance.

Finally, I am not saying that creationism is necessarily wrong. I am saying that, because of lack of valid scientific evidence and study, creationism does not belong in the science classroom in any more depth than a mention as a theory with no solid proof.


----------



## BeefyBeefo (Jan 30, 2008)

:smt1099


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

are we at the point in the conversation where we bring up Al Gore...? just curious... :watching:


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Since we are now copying and pasting here is some more :mrgreen:

"While it is true that many "scientists" disagree with evolution in favor of creationism, that number drops significantly when one considers only those who study nature or life. And it is almost non-existent when one considers only those with expertise in fields like biology, paleontology, geology or astronomy. The above list may seem impressive, but it is out of well over a hundred thousand PhD scientists alive today. It is also important to note that many scientists believe in some sort of god or creator, but are not creationists. Creationism generally refers to strict 6-day creation fundamentalism or the movement to teach that there is a god (who is responsible for creation) in science classes in public schools. About 60% of scientists believe in a personal god. And many believe this god created life indirectly, which can be considered a different sort of creationism. Meanwhile, about 99.85% of earth and life scientists (those same scientists who mostly believe in a personal god) accept evolution as well."

"* In 1998, a study by Larson and Witham appeared on the leading journal Nature ("Leading scientists still reject God"), showing that of the American scientists who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, only about 7 percent believe in a personal god. Religious believers form about 40 percent of the less eminent scientists in America.
* A study in Britain, undertaken by R. Elisabeth Cornwell and Michael Stirrat, involved sending a questionnaire to all 1,074 Fellows of the Royal Society who possessed an email address, offering several propositions and asking the scientists to rank their beliefs on that point from 1 to 7. About 23 percent responded and preliminary results indicate that, of these, 3.3 percent agreed strongly (chose 7) and 78.8 percent disagreed strongly (chose 1) that a personal god exists. A total of 12 Fellows chose 6 or 7 to indicate that they were believers, while 213 Fellows chose 1 or 2 to indicate that they were nonbelievers.

Some, if not most, of the scientists who believe in a god would believe in theistic evolution. So the number of eminent scientists who believe in creationism appears to be very small."

Once again.....even if a large number of scientist agreed with I.D. (which is far from the case). You still could not teach I.D. in a science classroom. I.D. Simply does not qualify as science. Anything which contains elements of _Supernaturalism_ is automatically excluded from serious scientific discussion and it certainly can't be taught in a science class.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Here is a very interesting update to that list: http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationistScientists

Also to put that list into some perspective, here is a list of scientist ALL NAMED STEVE who support evolution.......the list currently numbers 877. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

Texas just teaches the "TAKS". That's all the hell we care about.......ask any "school board". Forget everything else (no matter which side you're on!)!!! These kiddos got to pass the ultimate end-of-school test regarless of what they have learned. Aw.........jusforgitdtboutit.

:smt076:smt076:smt076:smt076:smt076:smt076:smt076


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

tnoisaw said:


> Cut and paste! What are you talking about? I knew all those names by heart. Just like all the Jeff Copper quotes you know by heart that you try to impress us with.


I don't know who Jeff Copper is, but I can and do quote Jeff Cooper off the top of my head all the time, and seldom have to resort to Google to make my case for me. I don't quote Col. Cooper to impress anyone, but rather to make various points about shooting, since he was the last century's best-spoken authority on firearms, and was far more eloquent than I will ever be.

I also like to quote Jeff Cooper because he was a real person, not a figment of the imagination of some ancient Middle Easterners. :mrgreen:


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

ok, everyone keep it civil... 

Besides, it doesn't matter anyway because Al Gore has said that the planet is doomed due to global warming, so we are going to die anyway. As a matter of fact... in 10 years. How do I know this, because I had a 11 year old girl tell me this 2 weeks ago. She was taught this in public school. The teacher has been put on paid leave until they sort out all the bullshit she filled her students heads with. I also have high school students who were made to watch Al Gore's bullshit movie during class time... not in their science class, but in their ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS class!!!!

So while you guys...and everyone else debates what should be done about creationism vs. evolution being taught in our public schools there is more serious bullshit that is being drilled into our kids heads at the moment.


----------

