Atheist Scientists in Uproar over Movie Showing Intolerance of Evidence for Intelligent Design

This is article is about the upcoming Ben Stein movie called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” that will be coming out in February (the website says “spring of 08′). Here is the trailer, it looks like it will be interesting and fun!

By the way:

The dictionary definition of bigotry is: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

I think that is the new definition of a darwinian athiest!

Advertisements

40 Responses

  1. No, no, no. It’s been moved back to April. You are sooo clueless. And you ought to spell separate with an “a”.

  2. onein6billion – thank you for the tip. (I will make the correction)

    clueless? Are you sure…

    This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God

    John 3:19-21 NKJV

    Repent of your sinful way of life – obey God by believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and He will enlighten your “thinking”..

    The truth will set your mind free from its cultural indoctrination and incarceration – what do you have to fear, God is merciful and will forgive…

    Lar

  3. “what do you have to fear”

    What I fear is that the creationists on the Texas Board of Education will further “water-down” the little bit of evolution that actually does get taught in Texas public high schools.

  4. […] If I were an Athiest – I’d be afraid of Home Schooling! Posted on January 24, 2008 by larrytemple I have been having a short dialog with “onein6billion” on my entry titled “Atheist Scientists in Uproar over Movie Showing…” […]

  5. onein6billion,

    See my current post titled “If I were an Atheist – I’d be afraid of Home Schooling!” for my response…

    https://larrytemple.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/if-i-were-an-athiest-id-be-afraid-of-home-schooling/

  6. The other point about the movie is that it wants to link Darwin (evolution) with Hitler. This is wrong in so many ways. There is a web site with a lot of information about how Hitler used Christians and Christianity as part of his anti-Semitism.

    One analogy – Einstein (physics) should be blamed for Hiroshima. Quite similar to evolution should be blamed for the actions of a megalomaniac.

    So do you really want to see this lying political propaganda movie?

  7. […] Posted on January 25, 2008 by larrytemple My dialog with “onein6billion” on my entry titled “Atheist Scientists in Uproar over Movie Showing…” […]

  8. So don’t you want new blog entries about Sternberg and Gonzales? Sternberg is “ostracized” after abusing his position as temporary editor. Gonzales is not granted tenure after almost no new published papers, no research grants, and no graduate students. He has sued. Chris Comer is forced to resign after forwarding an email? Are these Ben Stein stories going to be presented in an even-handed way? As Monk would say – I don’t think so.

  9. In Logic, What you just did is called a traditional “ad hominin attack” – cant beat the issues so I’ll beat the advocates.

    I cant speak for Ben, or the others, rumors and lies run rampent today especially when people like “darwinian evolutionists” feel threatened.

    Good, men and their reputations have been destroyed in the past. Have you personally talked to these men? People lie and tell half truths all the time (it’s called sin). Especially if Universities, or departments within, are trying to protect their reputations, by not going against the current accepted dogma’s. Business, Institutions and Politicians who have agenda’s to protect, have been known in the past to deceive, you know.

    Your suspicions could or could not be true. That doesn’t mean their “ID” claims are false.

    Based on the rumor mill, are you advocating some kinda book burning, oops I mean movie burning?

    Or…

    By you wanting me to post this so called dirt on these particular ID advocates, are you then now advocating toleration from evolutionists for ID advocates if they are “legitimate scientists” (the many others that you did not mention like Behe) and they don’t subscribe to darwin? I really would consider posting that! – I’ll title it “Darwinian’s who advocate toleration of ID” (ha, that actually might destroy reputations!) And yes, I’m sure in your and your’s mind’s that anyone who does not subscribe to darwinian dogmatics is illegitimate anyhow…

    BTW – Do you think your side has always been “evenhanded” when it comes to everything, are your people pure as the wind driven snow?

    So your telling me there are no modern “Piltdown Men”? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

    We live in a world of self centered, self serving, egotistical sinful men who will do anything to make a name for them self:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

    Listen, as an lay theologian, let me give you a little advice, in Christian theology, throughout church history, heresy (error) has always helped to clarify the issues and bolster the truth claims of Holy Writ (to Christians of course).

    I suspect it will be very much the same today.

    If I was you I would welcome it, engage with the “claims” and not ad hominin attacks – these issues will help you and your side to “clarify” its “truth” claims. Sooner or later you will have to face them anyhow.

    If ID is right or wrong it’s claims will stand of fall on their own merit – The current “orthodoxy” will always be challenged, welcome the controversies, grapple with them, understand them clearly, and dialog with them -only by this means will you be able to argue for or against them.

    Chill out about the movie, will you, sheesh…

    You seem to really like science, go see the movie, pick up some of the cutting edge (most current) ID materials and engage with them. And if you want my advice, be careful to listen to the best of your critics. And most of all don’t ask your “atheist friends” which materials to get, they will only give you the bais party line, ask your critics, they will point you to the current arguments and this will keep you sharp!

    And remember you don’t have to save the world, Jesus already did that!

    Lar

    PS Is “Monk” your Jesus? Do you worship him?

  10. “In Logic, What you just did is called a traditional “ad hominin attack” – cant beat the issues so I’ll beat the advocates.”

    No, I am stating “my side” of the issues. Just because it happens to be the opposite of Ben Stein’s side, doesn’t make it ad hominem. Ad hominem means saying a person has a bad character. I did not claim that. I simply claimed that the movie’s claim of “persecution” is unjustified by the facts.

    “That doesn’t mean their “ID” claims are false.”

    I never claimed it did. I am just claiming that Ben Stein is only going to give you one side of the story.

    “advocating toleration”

    I always advocate toleration for law-abiding people.

    “the many others that you did not mention like Behe”

    Non sequitur. I don’t think Behe is going to be in the movie. He has tenure. He can say anything he wants to. He can’t be expelled from his university.

    “Darwinians who advocate toleration of ID”

    Ok, what does this really mean? Can ID people have their own books? Thye do. Their own magazines? They do. Their own web sites? They do. Their own meetings and conferences? Happens all the time. But will their nonsense get published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? This seems very unlikely unless a temporary editor (Sternberg) can place it in a journal without notifying the other editors (contrary to the journal policy).

    “If ID is right or wrong its claims will stand or fall on their own merit.”

    Of course. The problem is that ID does not actually make any serious claims. So ID is creationism is religious and not taken seriously by science.

    “the cutting edge (most current) ID materials”

    LOL. The current ID materials are 10 to 20 years old.

    “Is “Monk” your Jesus?”

    Monk is a very funny TV show. After he shot Santa Claus, he got a lot of boos from the kids. Tony Shalhoub has won at least one Emmy as Monk, the observant detective.

  11. onein6,

    After your last posts (which I deleted except this one ) I have blacked you out (at least for a while)

    1) You have degenerated into using childish nursery rhymes, how can I argue with that “playground” like talk. I give your whole quote:

    “Somewhere, over the rainbow, bluebirds fly. (Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz Don’t look behind the curtain. You might find a god pulling all the strings. And it might not be the god you were hoping for. if he’s there, science won’t find him. They aren’t looking in the right place. They keep looking at things in the real world instead of in the Land of Oz.”

    Do I just sing a fairy tale song back to you?

    BTW, Emerald City is Washington DC, and the Wizard was the President

    http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/wizzoz.html

    2) What is the point if we are LOL at each other because of our different world-view’s (I can watch the stooges if I need a laugh)

    3) On my End Times Examined post – your comments made no contribution to the issues there., It was just a post I put up as a courtesy for the host friend of mine. I want to be able to direct friends there when I tell them about the conference. I can take a friendly jab and having a little fun at my expense but that is not what my post there is for.

    4) Nothing we are going to say to each other at this point is going to change either of our minds.

    5) You never really gave me explanations to my questions “This is standard creationist canard #23” is not an explanation to the male/female question. I actually was looking forward to a legitimate answer!

    6) Your comment “I have heard rumors that there are a lot of “bad” or “contradictory” statements in a certain book.”

    There are only contradictions and bad things for those who don’t understand it. And I am not going to waist hours upon hours of time contextualizing the entire bible with someone who already dismisses it – I’ll save that for those inside the fold.

    7) Too many posts on the same topic, I am ready to move on for a while, I can see you sleep eat and drink and live for this stuff. You seem (to me), to see yourself as a kind of knight crusading against this movie, you post the same stuff on other blogs: http://www.helives.com/blog/2007/10/03/expelled-the-movie/
    http://bleport.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/how-ben-stein-forced-me-to-agree-with-bill-oreilly-preview-of-forth-coming-documentary-on-intelligent-design/
    http://melcartera.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/expelled/

    Like I said there is more to life than this subject and I have other things I want to talk about.

    Lastly, I get the last word on my blog – You can have it your way on yours OK?

    But thanks for being decent, like I said I don’t mind a few jabs. All in all you were good to talk with…

  12. onein6,

    I understand that the Truth of the Gospel is offensive and that you think teaching it to children should be outlawed.

    Like I said in the other post, you’ll have to kill us – many in the present and the past have tried to outlaw it, and many Christians have suffered for preaching it.. This has always served to increase our numbers and Increase our strength.

    “Hate” you said – yes I “hate” evil, so I preach repentance…

    If you could only see the ugliness of your sin in God’s eyes (all the secret things you have ever done in thought word or deed) and know the joy of forgiveness and redemption, being “born again” of the Spirit of the living God. You would repent of your sin and join the right side!

    Remember, God will not let rebels in His eternal kingdom and Hell is forever!

    I plead with you fall on the mercy of the judge of the universe while you have time, remember when you stand before your Judge, you will not be asking any questions, you will be the one being questioned. Tonight and even tomorrow are not guaranteed to you. You could die in your sin this very night, so repent for your own good!

    May God grant you the grace to repent and believe,

    Lar

  13. “I actually was looking forward to a legitimate answer!”

    Then go read talk origins. I’m not going to waste my time.

  14. onein6,

    I found the “talk origins” site, now could you provide a few specific links – I want to be able to see the tree in the forest and because your very familiar with the site (your “15 years ago” earlier comment tells me so). You could point me to the best argument, I too have limited time.

    I like to listen to our critics….

    Now I’m off to Church, I’ll check later.

    God Bless You!

    Lar

  15. If you go there and hit search and type sex, you get this first:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html
    There are also two books listed at:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/sex.html

    But if you look at:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-rff.html
    it admits that the “origin of sex” is not very well covered in the articles of talkorigins.org.

    It is a problem because the origin of sex happened a few gazillion years ago. And it happened first in microbes? So there’s not much real evidence of that, mainly speculation. The evolutionary advantages of sex are obvious – a lot more “variation” and thus a lot better chance of coming up with something advantageous or novel.

    “very familiar with the site”

    Actually, that’s not true – I just assume that almost everything is there somewhere because I know that this is a collection of things gathered over the last 18+ years.

    “You could die in your sin this very night”

    LOL – well, it has not happened in the last 24000+ nights, so I think it’s unlikely to happen tonight.

  16. onein6,

    Thanks for responding and putting up the links!

    I will take a look at the links later this week or weekend, I’ve got a pretty busy week – I lead a Bible study tonight and have an elders meeting on Wednesday eve. Also, off and on I am giving a friend from church (the Pastor) a hand taping drywall (which I used to do for a living) his basement, he added a bedroom for the oldest to make room for their 5th child! (we love children, we do not selfishly abort them, besides we like to Multiply!!!)

    I’ve given it a little more thought and I’d love to keep chatting, but maybe just a few days a week here and there on these issues if you don’t mind.

    Let’s keep that up here at this post or at upcoming posts on the topic.

    Now if you want to make comments on other posts – please try to follow the “specific arguments” there and engage with them, I’d appreciate it. (I’m kind of a neat and tidy kind of guy and I don’t like my readers to have to read thru a lot of clutter (neither do I) , so I delete out what I believe is the “chaff”.

    If you don’t understand specific issues like End Times “EXAMINED”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialists
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmillenialism

    Please ask questions, then give opinions. Maybe if you understand us better you will be able to engage with us better – I hope to get the same from you.

    What do you say?

    By the way as far as it goes with Huckabee, don’t worry about him, he is a socialist, see Colter: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=226

    Whether he wins or not, I like Ron Paul – see my post’s here:

    https://larrytemple.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/were-for-ron-paul/

    https://larrytemple.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/jurisdictional-responsibilities-of-church-vs-the-state/

    Lar

    PS Remember over 100 people die per hour and not all from age, (watch your local news) and besides at 65 (24000+ nights) you’re practically standing on the steps of the courthouse…

  17. BTW, Here is a good debate between:

    Gordon Stein, his books included An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, and The Encyclopedia of Unbelief.

    http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/stein_16_4.html

    and

    Greg Bahnsen, who was once described as “the man atheists fear most.”
    http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/biobahn.html

    here:

    [audio src="http://www.cunninham.ca/debates/Greg%20Bahnsen%20vs%20Gordon%20Stein.%20The%20famous%20debate%20that%20people%20still%20talk%20about..mp3" /]

    Enjoy!

    Lar

  18. “What do you say?”

    I say that I was a Community Tax Center volunteer for 56 hours in the last 8 days and you are not likely to hear from me very much at all before April 15.

  19. Gordon Stein:

    “There are a large number of people who can and do manage to lead decent upright lives with no use for a belief in God as a guide.”

    Seems reasonable to me. I’m up to 80+ hours of volunteering in 12 days.

    Bahnsen “Theonomy in Christian Ethics”

    From the negative review on Amazon.com:

    “Theonomy derives from two Greek words meaning God and law respectively. Greg Bahnsen’s version of Christian ethics stands or falls on whether his understanding of Matthew 5:17-20, given in the chapter “The Abiding Validity of the Law in Exhaustive Detail” is correct. While Bahnsen presents his thesis in a way that at first glance looks highly convincing, it has been demonstrated that he is incorrect at so many points that his thesis cannot stand.”

    Seems reasonable to me.

    mp3 debate – does god exist? 1986 great debate

    From wikipedia:

    “In the debate with Stein, Bahnsen used the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG), which Stein later conceded he had been unprepared for but to which he subsequently developed a reply.”

    “The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an argument for the existence of God that attempts to show that logic, science, ethics (and generally every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian god. A version was formulated by Immanuel Kant in his 1763 work The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God. A version is also commonly used in presuppositional apologetics and is considered by some apologists to be the most persuasive method of argumentation.”

    I could listen for a little while. Bahnsen was a good apologist. Of course I don’t buy it. He uses the word “evidence”, but I don’t think that word means what he thinks it means. So I guess I really am anti-presuppositional (and liking it).

    “The key feature of this school is that it maintains the Christian apologist must assume the truth of the supernatural revelation contained in the Bible (that is, the Christian worldview), both prior to the apologetic exercise and as the result of it.”

    But if I don’t make that assumption, …

    Now go back to evolution – Christianity is true if and only if evolution is false? Then I choose evolution. But it seems to me that a lot of people call themselves Christians and don’t have a problem with evolution.

    “4) Nothing we are going to say to each other at this point is going to change either of our minds.”

    I started with that assumption. Someone who is into a religion this much almost never changes.

  20. onein6,

    “There are a large number of people who can and do manage to lead decent upright lives with no use for a belief in God as a guide.”

    I would never claim that Atheists aren’t nice or do nice things. Christians call this “Common Grace”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace

    However in an atheistic world-view “Good and Evil” are completely “arbitrary”. To say anything else is to say they are “absolute”.

    “decent and upright” are relative. “Decent” defined by who or what? “Upright” defined by who or what?

    _______________

    BTW Everyone has “presuppositions” (basic foundational assumptions) East and West have different basic assumptions by which they interpret facts through.

    Darwinians assume “uniformitarianism” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_%28science%29

    I get back to you later with more, we’ve been battling snow all weekend, Chicagoland got hit with a blizzard, my crew and I have been digging out of a foot of snow.

    Lar

    BTW Are you retired or semi-retired?

  21. “However in an atheistic world-view “Good and Evil” are completely “arbitrary”. To say anything else is to say they are “absolute”. ”

    Well, you have some terms in these sentences that are not all that well-defined. Obviously anyone who violates the “laws” of a society might be faced with prosecution by the legal authorities. So perhaps this is a false dicotomy. I suppose you wish to argue that “good and evil” are absolute. So a theocracy (like sharia) is appropriate? Hundreds of religious laws? What about “abortion”? Is it good or evil? To save the life of the mother?

    ““decent and upright” are relative. “Decent” defined by who or what? “Upright” defined by who or what?”

    The “norms” of a society. So 40 lashes for being in a car with a man who is not your relative is appropriate? Stoning to death for adultery?

    “Darwinians assume “uniformitarianism” ”

    Or maybe scientists and science assume uniformitarianism. But only because there has never been any “evidence” that this assumption was incorrect. Do you have some scientific evidence?

    “BTW Are you retired or semi-retired?”

    LOL. I’m now up to 90 unpaid volunteer hours in the last 14 days. And doing tax returns requires some concentration. Not to mention that the tax centers are open from 8AM to 8PM. I also lose some driving time between 3 different sites. And I take some time off for lunch. So I only “work” when my former employer says “help, help, please come fix this problem that a customer has discovered” – and that’s quite rare nowadays.

    And the topic for this thread is “Expelled” the movie???

  22. onein6,

    I read the movie critic….

    Do you actually think this guy is objective?

    Its obvious to me, that he is preaching to the darwinian choir…

    How do you think Medved will review it?

    Opinions, subjective opinions, you know…

    Hopefully we can find someone who tries really hard to be as objective as possible….

    Lar

    BTW The article mentioned the scopes trial. When “Inherent the Wind” (1960) came out, I wonder how many Atheists were concerned with an “evenhanded” telling of the events. The movie is historical fiction, and yet, the general public today, practically takes it as historical gospel truth.

    See: “Inherit the Wind and history”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherit_the_Wind

  23. onein6,

    So, what if the “norms” of a society are 1939 Germany, how do you call their societal “norms” evil?

    Caricature Christian ethics all you want (and your “myopic” understanding of them)

    But answer the question.

    Evil is purely “subjective” and “arbitrary” in your world-view, as I said, Evil is a theistic category.

    And yes I would rather live in just, benevolent, “theocracy” where there is a absolute standard of justice, rather than a society where justice is whatever a despotic scientific oligarchy defines justice as.

    Here is the society I fear, I quote:

    “Since the scientific method gives paramount importance to experiment, a scientific society must be an experiment in scientific planning. Since controls are basic to experimentation, in order to produce a a valid result , a totalitarian society is the goal of the social sciences, in that freedom is destructive to planning and human engineering.

    The social sciences therefore are hostile to freedom in any historic Christian sense.

    Freedom has no place in the laboratory of society.”

    R J Rushdoony

    I fear a society of “subjective” Justice, Ethics and Law. This is much more scary to me than the “old Christendom” even with all its flaws…

    Lar

    “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

    Jesus Christ – Matthew 6:1-4

  24. On Jan 25th (above) I posted:

    “So do you really want to see this lying political propaganda movie?”

    On Feb 4th you posted:

    “Do you actually think this guy is objective?”

    So you had your answer 10 days before you asked the question.

    “Evil is a theistic category.”

    The only problem is: there are a large number of religions and they all define evil differently. Why is your definition (if you really have one) any better than any other? What does your religion say about “running a stop sign”? Obviously stealing is evil. What is the religious penalty for stealing a loaf of bread? Stealing a car? Robbing a bank?

    I don’t want priests deciding what is legal and what the penalty for breaking the law is. And I don’t want scientists making those decisions either. And “social science” is a pseudo-science.

    “that your charitable deed may be in secret”

    Hilarious. It’s a little hard to be secretive when the sign at the entrance says “we are volunteers” and everyone knows the tax returns are prepared free and the room is full of 12 or more volunteers and 20 or 30 parents, kids, and infants. And 50% of the clients are coming back for the second or third straight year. It kind of defeats the purpose if we don’t try to tell the world about our service. The 8 tax centers prepared about 3000 tax returns in the first 2 weeks. Those clients did not pay a professional tax service about $150 each for their tax returns. And they got about $2000 refunds each in EITC and CTC tax credits. In fact, apparently many would have to pay extra to take out a loan against their tax refund in order to pay the $150 tax preparation fee!

    Needless to say, the vast majority of our clients say “Thank You!”.

  25. “So do you really want to see this lying political propaganda movie?”

    Now were going in circles: I never said anything about the Movie’s “objectivity” – only my skepticism of its critics, (10 days, Pleazze??) here was my response:

    “I cant speak for Ben, or the others, rumors and lies run rampant today especially when people like “darwinian evolutionists” feel threatened.”

    Good, men and their reputations have been destroyed in the past. Have you personally talked to these men? People lie and tell half truths all the time (it’s called sin). Especially if Universities, or departments within, are trying to protect their reputations, by not going against the current accepted dogma’s. Business, Institutions and Politicians who have agenda’s to protect, have been known in the past to deceive, you know.

    Your suspicions could or could not be true”….

    You “claim” it is a “lying political propaganda movie” and my point is that, I will have to see the movie myself to make that judgment. OK?

    Why should I believe you or your biased friends in the media? You and yours have an obvious “ax to grind” …

    ____________

    “I don’t want priests” Neither do I –

    However I want judges and magistrates who “define” justice and ethics by an objective standard (biblical ethics rightly understood) Not by whatever way the wind blows today “”subjective” standard (like 1939 Germany)

    See my post titled “Jurisdictional Responsibilities of Church vs the State” for further explanation on separation of powers: https://larrytemple.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/jurisdictional-responsibilities-of-church-vs-the-state/

    _________________

    “The only problem is: there are a large number of religions and they all define evil differently.”

    This is exactly my point they at least “DEFINE” Evil by an “objective standard”. As I mentioned already. I would disagree with the Moslem’s “objective standard” but at least he has one in his “world-view”. Atheists however have a “subjective”, whatever way the wind blows today standard.

    Evil is a continual “moving target” in an atheistic system – Peace today – Tyranny tomorrow…

    ________________

    “Obviously stealing is evil. What is the religious penalty for stealing a loaf of bread? Stealing a car? Robbing a bank?”

    You obviously have not read or don’t understand the Bible and how it DOES speak to these issues. Biblical ethics takes the “principal” or the “precept” and applies it to other area’s, for instance an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is an example of justice administered in “accord” to the crime.

    I will say more about this later (it’s getting late)

    __________

    “that your charitable deed may be in secret”

    “I’m now up to 90 unpaid volunteer hours in the last 14 days. And doing tax returns requires some concentration. Not to mention that the tax centers are open from 8AM to 8PM. I also lose some driving time between 3 different sites.”

    I just asked if you were “retired or semi-retired?”

    My point is you don’t need to boast “here on my blog” – not where your helping, of course “it’s a little hard to be secretive” there…

    if you are willing, just answer the question, are you “retired or semi-retired? I was just curious. OK?

    Lar

  26. “You “claim” it is a “lying political propaganda movie” and my point is that, I will have to see the movie myself to make that judgment. OK?”

    NOT OK.

    This movie will present only one side of the stories. So you cannot make a proper judgement based only on the movie.

  27. onein6,

    “So you cannot make a proper judgement based only on the movie.”

    First of all, read what I said, slowly and carefully:

    _

    “You “claim” it is a “lying political propaganda movie” and my point is that, I will have to see the movie myself to make that judgment. OK?”
    _

    I know atheists think that Christains are stupid simpletons. But I know “lying political propaganda” when I see it (like most of what is on the TV and the movies today)

    Believe it or not, I can discern if a movie, documentary, newspaper article, or if a book is being totally bias or is trying to be as “objective” as possible. (even if it is done by Christians)

    And the Movie wont be my “only” source…

    Besides, why pray tell, should I just take your word for it anyhow?

    Why should I trust that what atheist’s call “propaganda”, really is?

    Atheists have slandered, made caricatures of, and out right lied about Christians and Christianity. They have called us “stupid” because we believe in supernatural creation.

    We all too often ourselves have been the victims of atheistic slander and propaganda, so why should we believe you?

    Maybe that is why many Christians won’t listen to you, atheists have “cried wolf” too many times….

    As I said, are you advocating some kinda movie burning?

    Lar

  28. Newsflash:

    Here is an excerpt from a WND article titled “Intelligent design costs prof his job: Regents reject tenure request without evidence, testimony” dated 2/07/08:

    Evolution News also debunked Rosenberg’s claim that there was something deficient about Gonzalez’s research record.

    “You take a look at somebody’s research record over the six-year probationary period and you get a sense whether this is a strong case. Clearly, this was a case that looked like it might be in trouble,” Rosenberg had said.

    “Really?” questioned Evolution News in its commentary. “Was Gonzalez somehow derelict in publishing 350 percent more peer-reviewed publications than his own department’s stated standard for research excellence? Or in co-authoring a college astronomy textbook with Cambridge University Press? Or in having his research recognized by Science, Nature, Scientific American and other top science publications?”

    In 2004 Gonzalez department nominated him for an “Early Achievement in Research” honor, his supporters noted.

    According to Robert J. Marks, distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Baylor, he checked a citation index of journal papers, and found one of Gonzalez’ research papers had 153 citations listed; another had 139.

    “I have sat on oodles of tenure committees at both a large private university and a state research university, chaired the university tenure committee, and have seen more tenure cases than the Pope has Cardinals,” he said. “This is a LOT of citations for an assistant professor up for tenure.”

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55826

    And Evolution News “Stellar Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez Denied Fair Hearing by Iowa State Board of Regents” reports:

    “The Board of Regents would not allow into the record extensive e-mail documentation showing that Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure not due to his academic record, but because he supports intelligent design,” said Casey Luskin, Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, where Gonzalez is a senior fellow. “Then the Board refused to grant Dr. Gonzalez the right to be heard through oral arguments. Does it come as any surprise that now they denied his appeal?”

    “They’ve denied his due process rights throughout this entire appeal,” Luskin continued. “This kangaroo court decided its verdict long before today’s deliberations even began.”

    “The most disheartening part of this appeal is that they refused Dr. Gonzalez the opportunity to present his case fully to the Board and to have face-to-face contact with the Board through oral arguments,” said Chuck Hurley.

    “The Board of Regents had an opportunity to give justice to an outstanding scientist who is a leader in his field,” Luskin concluded. “Instead, they caved in to political pressure and threw academic freedom to the wind.”

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/

    ___

    (1/26) you said:

    “Gonzales is not granted tenure after almost no new published papers, no research grants”

    yet this article says:

    “Was Gonzalez somehow derelict in publishing 350 percent more peer-reviewed publications than his own department’s stated standard for research excellence? Or in co-authoring a college astronomy textbook with Cambridge University Press? Or in having his research recognized by Science, Nature, Scientific American and other top science publications?”

    and

    In 2004 Gonzalez department nominated him for an “Early Achievement in Research” honor, his supporters noted.

    “According to Robert J. Marks, distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Baylor, he checked a citation index of journal papers, and found one of Gonzalez’ research papers had 153 citations listed; another had 139.”

    “I have sat on oodles of tenure committees at both a large private university and a state research university, chaired the university tenure committee, and have seen more tenure cases than the Pope has Cardinals,” he said. “This is a LOT of citations for an assistant professor up for tenure.”

    As I said in my earlier entry (1/26):

    Good, men and their reputations have been destroyed in the past. Have you personally talked to these men? People lie and tell half truths all the time (it’s called sin). Especially if Universities, or departments within, are trying to protect their reputations, by not going against the current accepted dogma’s. Business, Institutions and Politicians who have agenda’s to protect, have been known in the past to deceive, you know.

    _

    “The Board of Regents would not allow into the record extensive e-mail documentation showing that Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure not due to his academic record, but because he supports intelligent design”

    And your worried about being “evenhanded” ???

    I smell a ID which hunt!

    AS I said in my original Post “The dictionary definition of bigotry is: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own. I think that is the new definition of a darwinian athiest!”

    What happened to “tolerance”, eh??

    You said: “This movie will present only one side of the stories” This leads me to ask, have you been reading “one side” of the story?

    Are you now going to retract your statement about Gonzalez?

    As I said “the Movie wont be my “only” source”

    Lar

    BTW: I have “The Privileged Planet” – Would you please actually engage with Gonzalez’s “complexity” claims? And, please don’t give me “creationist canard” number such and such, as a meaningful dialog, nor the given “enough time” and “chance” nonsense either…

    What you must understand, is that you guys need to actually engage with “the claims” and give “real answers” to them, not just the typical “enough time” and “chance” arguments.

    BTW: We homeschoolers actually teach “evolution”, we teach it exposing its wild claims, non-life to life – molecules to man nonsense. Homeschoolers know the “evolutionary answers”, but they also know how to answer and debunk the bogus claims of macro evolution…

  29. “Believe it or not, I can discern if a movie, documentary, newspaper article, or if a book is being totally biased or is trying to be as “objective” as possible. (even if it is done by Christians)”

    LOL

    “Here is an excerpt from a WND article titled “Intelligent design costs prof his job: Regents reject tenure request without evidence, testimony” dated 2/07/08:”

    It would seem that you failed to discern that this is not the whole story.

    Petition to cross-examine, your honor?

    Petition denied – only one side of the story will be heard before judgement is passed.

    “Have you personally talked to these men?”

    You are ridiculous and hilarious.

    “publishing 350 percent”

    Half of the story. These papers did not have Gonzalez as the primary author.

    “In 2004…”

    But, unfortunately, his tenure decision did not occur until 3 years later. And that gave him plenty of time to prove that tenure should not be granted.

    “Would you please actually engage with Gonzalez’s “complexity” claims?”

    Lots of other people have dealt with this “argument” in the last 4 years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonzalez_(astronomer)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/04/privileged-plan-5.html
    http://www.ps.uci.edu/~kuehn/personal/asa2003.ppt
    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-01-09.html
    http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/784_review_of_emthe_privileged_p_6_7_2005.asp
    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/10/privileged-plan-8.html
    http://pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=privileged+planet

    “we teach it exposing its wild claims, non-life to life – molecules to man nonsense”

    Fortunately I will die a long time before I have to rely on any of your students as a doctor. Or fortunately your students will be exposed to the truth in a real university and a real medical school if they choose that profession. Then they will ask: “Why did you lie to me?”

  30. onein6,

    Answers ??? These links prove nothing – accept that these folks have a aprori working assumption: Evolution is right and supernaturalism is wrong.

    They “subjectivity” theorize and speak of coincidences themselves. As I said before you cannot disprove “anti-supernaturalism”!

    I remind you that modern science does not have “exhaustive knowledge” on any subject.

    Given enough time, your side believes (has faith) that the facts will prove evolution to be true. I believe the opposite, the more science discovers how complex our universe is the more it will prove intent and design.

    “Half of the story”

    Ya, the other half you don’t like to tell…

    Contemporary atheists are the “new inquisition” they will burn anyone who departs from their “darwinian dogma” . They will slander and destroy anyone who does not uphold their “truth”.

    as I said:

    “Why should I trust that what atheist’s call “propaganda”, really is?

    Atheists have slandered, made caricatures of, and out right lied about Christians and Christianity. They have called us “stupid” because we believe in supernatural creation.

    We all too often ourselves have been the victims of atheistic slander and propaganda, so why should we believe you?”

    Besides, why should we trust and believe someone who says that “truth is relative” anyhow?

    “Fortunately I will die a long time before I have to rely on any of your students as a doctor.”

    Are you crazy? Or a fool?

    My doctor is a Christian. Are you are telling me that you would not accept (or depend on) “heart surgery” from him if he were the only doctor available? And this because he denies evolution? – And you call us bigots?

    “fortunately your students will be exposed to the truth in a real university and a real medical school if they choose that profession.”

    exposed to the truth”??? Correction: what you call “truth” (which in your world is “relative” anyhow)

    “Then they will ask: “Why did you lie to me?”

    So you are trying to tell me that there is no such thing as a college educated person (educated in what you call a “real” university) who denies macro evolution and believes in special creation?

    I have news for you there are (in all the arts).

    I guess you’ll just call these folks stupid, right?

    Lar

  31. ““Would you please actually engage with Gonzalez’s “complexity” claims?””

    And then when I really do engage these claims:

    “These links prove nothing.”

    Your reaction shows that you choose ignorance.

    “They have called us “stupid” …”

    There is a fine line between ignorant and stupid. I consider that one who deliberately chooses ignorance is stupid.

    “because we believe in supernatural creation.”

    Believing in a supernatural creation without any real evidence seems to me to be a denial of reality. This choice seems to appeal to a lot of people who otherwise would not be considered stupid. So perhaps it is ignorance due to faulty reasoning rather than stupidity.

    “I have news for you there are (in all the arts).
    I guess you’ll just call these folks stupid, right?”

    No, ignorant.

  32. onein6billion,

    “I really do engage these claims”

    “You” did not engage anything, you just posted a bunch of “links” and after I read much of it, I pointed out that much of it was “subjective speculation” and bias.

    Do you know what “subjective” means?

    “real evidence” – As I said before in the other post:

    You must also assume that matter, energy and the universe are eternal and always were here (an assertion you can never prove) – I do assume (which I could never prove to you because of your rebellion against God), that God is eternal and always was and He designed all (the bible and creation itself tells me so!).

    “deliberately chooses ignorance is stupid”

    Again, as I said:

    If I see a beautiful painting, I know there must be a master painter. Tell any simple minded person that this painting “just happened” given enough “time” and “chance”, he will say “that’s is a bunch of hooey”…

    Most people in the world can see it, how then do you explain yourself???

    One of your own finally figured it out:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

    Lar

  33. “You did not engage anything, you just posted a bunch of “links” and after I read much of it, I pointed out that much of it was “subjective speculation” and bias.”

    Of course you should recall that the original hypothesis – that there is some supernatural cosmic designer – is mere speculation. There is no real evidence. So when Gonzalez writes a book saying “what a wonderful coincidence that the Earth allows intelligent beings to learn things about the universe”, the proper reply is “it’s just a coincidence”.

    So Gonzalez’s speculation is countered with “your hypothesis is unproven, unscientific and unnecesary”.

    Because, of course, it’s NOT science. It makes no predictions and cannot be falsified by any observation. So why would a research university want a person who invested a large amount of time on this speculation (when he should have been doing real research) on their faculty?

    “You must also assume that matter, energy and the universe are eternal”

    This seems obviously contrary to the evidence of the Big Bang. Not to mention irrelevant. But at least it is a kind of scientific hypothesis. And the evidence is that it is false. The counter-hypothesis – that matter, energy, and the universe had a beginning about 14 billion years ago – seems to be well-supported by the evidence.

    “If I see a beautiful painting, I know there must be a master painter. Tell any simple minded person that this painting “just happened” given enough “time” and “chance”, he will say “that’s is a bunch of hooey”…

    LOL So does that make this simple-minded person ignorant or stupid?

    Perhaps “science” is not something that a “simple-minded” person has thought much about. But an argument using the authority of a simple-minded person doesn’t seem like the kind of argument that a reasonable person would try to make.

    “One of your own finally figured it out:”

    LOL. An argument from a senile “authority” that is now 84 years old? Apparently his latest “book” is really what his “ghost author” thought he really ought to have written if he had the same thoughts as that “ghost author” and actually was capable of writing anything coherent.

    “I do assume … that God is eternal”

    That’s NOT science.

    “which I could never prove to you because of your rebellion against God”

    That sentence contains three religious nonsense words.

  34. Onein6,

    In light of what I said about the “simpleminded”

    Could you explain to me what “wisdom” is?

    Can wisdom’s “opposite” apply to “smart” people?

    Now try real hard “to think” about what I am trying to say, OK?

    Lar

  35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom

    “A standard philosophical definition says that wisdom consists of making the best use of available knowledge. As with any decision, a wise decision may be made with incomplete information. The technical philosophical term for the opposite of wisdom is folly.”

    “Can wisdom’s “opposite” apply to “smart” people?”

    Can a “smart” person fail to make good use of available knowledge when making a decision? Of course he can. So what? We are not discussing one person’s opinion. We are discussing the opinions of creationists and scientists about the Theory of Evolution. Creationists believe that it is obviously false and scientists believe that it is obviously true. So which group has the best knowledge about this theory and the evidence that supports or contradicts it?

    “Now try real hard “to think” about what I am trying to say, OK?”

    I don’t have a clue. You have spouted an awful lot of religious nonsense and none of it makes the slightest sense to me.

    So are you trying to say “Don’t try to contradict my religious beliefs with mere reality.” Or “I choose to ignore reality.” Or “I’m not interested in scientific arguments.”

    It would seem that you are free to stop this fruitless discussion at any time.

  36. “It would seem that you are free to stop this fruitless discussion at any time”

    This actually is my blog, not yours remember?

    onein6, Honestly I ask then, why do “you” keep coming back for the last word? You are free as well – are you trying to prove something to yourself about Christians?

    What is your point?

    Lar

  37. “What is your point?”

    You keep asking stupid questions and I persist in giving reasonable answers.

  38. Or maybe I wish to point out that a certain Roger Ebert trashed this mockumentary:

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html

  39. Hey, Onein6 Where u been, still out there on your crusade against this film? You must be pretty board these days…

    And so what, you like Roger Ebert – I like Michael Medved (who rated it well) – yada, yada. Lets not argue like children.

    Anyhow here is one for you:
    https://larrytemple.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/atheist-i-truly-believe-africa-needs-god/

    I’ll be outta town for a few days – till then God Bless!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: