This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Expelled

Expelled

Postby Shadowland Dweller » April 8th, 2008, 7:21 pm

I heard about this new movie, thought it looks interesting, not so much for the science debate, but the silencing of the scientists, etc.

Here is the trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE



Here is the shorter version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh35qLYM ... re=related


I looked through five pages of search results to add a disagreeing video to this post, but the ones I found were either vulgar in title and I wasn't even going to watch or the objectors looked like they were 20 years old. Being young isn't bad, it's just that I wanted someone a little learned in the appropriate field of subject. Anyway, if you want an opposing view, just youtube Ben Stein Expelled and you will get something.
User avatar
Shadowland Dweller
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: wouldn't YOU like to know!

Postby mitchellmckain » April 8th, 2008, 8:34 pm

mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby Stanley Anderson » April 8th, 2008, 9:02 pm

SD,
Interesting that you should post this just at the time I have been thinking of starting a thread about -- hmmm...well, I hate to say "ID" because it apparently carries baggage that anti-ID people (hmm "AID" people?:-) can only see RED at and can't seem to get around. And what I want to talk about has virtually nothing to do with the perceived "hidden motives" and "ID has nothing to do with science!" pre-conceptions of the AID point of view.

In any case, I'll see if I can formulate my thoughts more or less coherrently on the subject I have in mind and post it at some point. I also look forward to the movie when it comes out (and when I can get a chance to see it), though it probably deals with a different aspect or subject than the subject I want to address above.

--Stanley
…on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a fair green country under a swift sunrise.
User avatar
Stanley Anderson
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 3251
Joined: Aug 1996
Location: Southern California

Postby Boromir » April 9th, 2008, 7:58 am

Grown-ups are always thinking of uninteresting explanations.

Digory
Boromir
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Croatia

Postby Larry W. » April 9th, 2008, 11:23 am

But should a professor teacher teaching at public college or university be required to teach creation science and intelligent design? Although it is the opposite point of view, that seems to be the same issue of freedom of speech that this film raises when it suggests that someone will lose their professional credentials by supporting intelligent design and rejecting Darwin. Of course those who don't support Darwin might have the option of teaching in a Christian institution if they would have the opportunity for another position. There isn't really anything that requires them to teach in a secular institution (unless perhaps the economy prevents them from making a job change). There is difference though, between teaching Darwin's ideas as absolute truth or as theories open to question, and it seems that in a free country everything should be open to question.

Larry W.
Larry W.
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1721
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Western Michigan

Postby Shadowland Dweller » April 9th, 2008, 4:18 pm

well, I have to say, that this was one of the major hurdles my husband and I had to work through when deciding where our children will be schooled.
Evolution is a theory, yet is the only one taught, yet in almost every other subject, there are opposing viewpoints and such given (maybe not in math, though, is "new math" still taught anywhere?)

After much debate with my husband, we came to an agreement, one that means we "finish" their education by teaching other viewpoints on this subject. I find it rather annoying that in this area of theory, no other theories are accepted because they carry the scent of religion. (don't get me started on how in every other way schools cower to other religions)


Mitchellmckain, I think it kind of does boil down to freedom of speech. I do see how others think it is a smokescreen by which to evangelize, but look at it from out point of view too, evolution to us who believe differently than the textbooks, looks like a smokescreen by which to indoctrinate children into the religion of "non-religion".



I was very much against public school education for my children, and this is the main reason. There is a huge imbalance in the subject of science (that and christianity seems to be a dirty word, but all other religions are accepted and catered to) I bet if the Dali Llama taught Intelligent Design, schools would be bussing kids to him to hear him speak about it....

http://www.parentmap.com/content/view/875/54/ (it's toward the bottom of the article)

I have a suggestion for the government, since it's supposed to reflect the desires of the people, let us have a say in how our children are schooled, or, let us opt out of paying taxes for the schools. If you are not going to do what majority asks, then let the majority leave and take their money elsewhere.
User avatar
Shadowland Dweller
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: wouldn't YOU like to know!

Postby rusmeister » April 10th, 2008, 3:43 am

"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby mitchellmckain » April 10th, 2008, 6:46 am

mitchellmckain
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby Boromir » April 10th, 2008, 9:23 am

@Mitch

I read serious criticism of Kuhn's proposals and, honestly and without intention of being rude, your criticism (and the one on the link) by comparison sound more like a panic reaction than serious analisis.

Irony with Kuhn is that he was up to protect the sefsufitiency of science in the time when it was more and more clear, not least by the discovery of quite chaotic manner of historical scientific development, that there is fundamentally no more reason to call Newton a scientist than it is to call Ptolomei that or even Aristotle in a particular sense - but they were wrong inspite of their fundamentally scientific outlook, and they were wrong big time!

What guarantees us that science on its own is right this time? Shouldn't science be backed up by other non-scientific disciplines in order to sanate highly probable current unknown scientific delusions? "No!" - answers Kuhn - "Becouse the science has the power in it self to restructure itself in revolutonary manner as it has done so in the past, without any help from non-scientific disciplines."

It was exactly the panic reactions of scientific comunity that horrored in thought of what would happen if science would be relativised in that sense, it "will replace the scientist with a bunch salesmen and evangelists selling a buch of wacky ideas with load of rhetoric and it will make science indistinguishable from fraud". And Kuhn, as did Gallilleo before him, for the "greater good" left the sleeping dogs lie by silenceing himself so that the science may continue it's non-examined rule in the western logosphere. (Althoug he did oppen Pandora's box and things will never be the same one dimensional selfunderstanding that the orthodox science cherishes)

ID is renewing this challange to science from different perspective and by different means but generaly in the same arena and under the same rules. It's champinons are not theologians by trade but mathematicians, with the exeptions of Phillip Jhonson who uses his lawyering skills in order to establish a reasnoble doubt in regards to evolutionary hegemony, and M.Behe who I leave out, for his "irreducible complexity" concept is vounrable to the "god of the gap" objection and the ID proposals essentialy are not.

If ID would be faced as an ademical peer, instead of ridiculed out of it, it could ither be honestly defeated and silenced forever leaving it to the museums and historical leksicons, or it could change the face of science. What would be the consequences of this new (essentialy scientific)paradigm shift? I submit that it would do to the status of science in the west what protestantism has religiously done to the Catholic's status (it is no accident that ID's champinons are mainly protestants).
There would be price to pay, to wich you rightly point, but as a protestant, in the final analysis I say it would be worth it.
Grown-ups are always thinking of uninteresting explanations.

Digory
Boromir
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Croatia

Postby Neil K » April 10th, 2008, 5:30 pm

I'm surprised there's been no mention of so far; I'm all for anyone trying to argue that Science and Faith are not necessarily enemies of one another, but not if they're prepared to employ blatant dishonesty in the process.
'Between my finger and my thumb / The squat pen rests. / I'll dig with it.' - Seamus Heaney, 'Digging'
Neil K
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Liverpool

Postby *~Diamond in the Rough~* » April 10th, 2008, 8:14 pm

Today I went to IKEA and hid in the wardrobes, and every time someone opened the doors I welcomed them to Narnia!!
User avatar
*~Diamond in the Rough~*
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: The corner of 'No and where' (WA) The REAL Washington

Postby rusmeister » April 11th, 2008, 3:00 am

"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Postby Shadowland Dweller » April 11th, 2008, 4:54 pm

rusmeister, thank you. The quote about your former teacher is crazy. I like this quote especially.... "I could have lied about my beliefs in class, but what is the point of that in America?” Head told me. “We are not free unless we choose to exercise our freedoms without fear of reprisals. I choose freedom, and I choose to defend my beliefs against state indoctrination.”

Very true. I think (getting off subject a wee bit) the less we actively use and defend our rights, the easier they are to take away.


I have read too many stories lately where students are told they can not do anything "religious" at school. One student was told that the drawing he did for class, drew the picture at home then turned it in. He got a zero because it had a cross and a scripture reference on it. The teacher said no religious drawings were allowed in art class (go figure, I have strong opinions about that :rolleyes: ) yet the boy's classmates turned in drawings demonic in nature, the school had pictures with greek mythology, and even Budda.

I even heard of a judge who told some parents who objected to something being taught in the schools, that parents had no say in what goes on in the school, essentially, they were the states property until the final bell rang......that is scary to me.
*************************************

mitchmcain, you said.....................
"Well I think it is your desire to indoctrinate your children and not let them see an opposing point of view. I think your justification is full of contradicitons. You accept the lie that science=truth and and so you want to include religion in the topic of science. The proper and honest way to do this is religious education. I am all for that, 100%. If Sunday school is not enough then you can make it an extracuricular class every day like the Mormons do here in Utah. Or you can just send them to an denominational school and many people do.

But you know the problem with religious education in the public schools don't you. The problem is that most people don't really want the kind of religious education, where their children will be exposed to the ideas of all the different religons placed on an equal footing. What they really seem to want is to tell their children what to believe and what not to believe, which is the real reason why this is kept out of the public schools. Now I think it would be wonderful to have this kind of religious education in the public schools. I just don't think parent are going to agree with me and so I don't think it is going to happen. The use of ID for this purpose is founded on dishonesty and laziness. And by employing this dishonest attempt of ID to circumvent religious freedom and to destroy science the result can be nothing less than a return to the dark ages. It is amazing how people fail to understand what they have and in their impulse to complain about the inconveniences of life, will destroy what was so hard to build.

Set up a country with your church as a state religions where all the schools can teach what you want, and within a generation your desendents will be screaming for freedom. Perhaps people will become so disillusioned with religion as a result, that the way for the antichirst will be paved with gold. Swinging to greater excesses is the pattern of history, and only in compromise can mankind find peace."

***I never said I don't want my children to see anything else beside what I believe, that is the main reason my husband and I agreed on public school, because of the conflicting view from ours on some subjects, it gives us a chance to show and teach our beliefs.


***I do NOT accept that ID is a lie, I do think that has potential, I am NOT extreme either way, mainly because I don't know enough about either subject to justify fanatical loyalty. And since I don't have the time to go to college for 12 years (I exaggerate some I think...) I will be content with some information about this subject. I will not defend or attempt to explain my view to you because you don't seem like the kind of person who would be interested in the least.


*** I don't think that ID is trying to destroy science, most I think are trying to reconcile their faith and science. They are asking questions and encouraging others to do the same, which is what I thought science was about anyway.


***I do think that a lot of parents what to tell their kids what to and what not to believe, but that is NOT why other theories are not included in school science. The state is telling the kids what to believe, AND telling them they have to lie about what THEY believe if they want to pass with a good grade.


***you said***
"Set up a country with your church as a state religions where all the schools can teach what you want, and within a generation your desendents will be screaming for freedom. Perhaps people will become so disillusioned with religion as a result, that the way for the antichirst will be paved with gold"

^ That was mean. Just because I disagree I am a fanatic in your book? huh.
User avatar
Shadowland Dweller
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: wouldn't YOU like to know!

Postby Messenger_of_Eden » April 11th, 2008, 8:15 pm

"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself."--St. Augustine of Hippo
User avatar
Messenger_of_Eden
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 6951
Joined: Dec 2005

Postby rusmeister » April 12th, 2008, 3:41 am

"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one."
Bill "The Blizzard" Hingest - That Hideous Strength
User avatar
rusmeister
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Next

Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 9 guests

cron