Recently written by Tad Cronn:
If you haven’t seen Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” yet, I highly recommend you take the opportunity….
Underlying all of the discussion is the theme that this conflict between evolution and ID theorists is less scientific in nature than it is religious, but Stein makes the case that it is atheism that is the religion being promoted…
The impulse in academic, political and media circles to declare debates closed, issues resolved and consensus established, while labeling the open-minded as “deniers” or “fringe,” is totalitarian in its essence and if ignored its practitioners will only become more prevalent and determined.
Tad… This is utter nonsense.
Ben Stein is confusing Free Speech with Scientific Method. Others have covered this far better than I could ever do.
Reasons why Ben Stein is a Fool
Jugement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
MC Frontalot on the Origin of Species
Eugenie Scott: Intelligent Design & Young Earth Creationism Part One
Eugenie Scott: Intelligent Design & Young Earth Creationism Part Two
Christopher Hitchens on Free Speech Part One
Christopher Hitchens on Free Speech Part Two
Even more at Expelled Exposed.
[...] Posts The Model for the Enlightened Cognition of Compassion‘Expelled’: An argument for ignoranceA Perspective on Atheism: The MadmanRhetoric 10Five QuestionsOn Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral [...]
Pingback by Refuting Tad Cronn. Again. « rhetoric sans pareil — April 29, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
Here’s a fact about Eugenie Scott who you use extensively above to defend Expelled – she joined the American eugenic society, the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1974. So when she criticizes the section in Expelled which talks about Hitler and eugenics she is talking about her own convictions and her own associates (the other eugenicists). It’s customary to acknowlege these kinds of biases but eugenicists and the society they belong to keep their membership secret. Is this good in a free society? – and doesn’t it show that Stein has something to say when he talks about suppression of discussion? (The scientific racists – Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck and Chris Brand are all eugenic society members)
Comment by K O'Keefe — May 2, 2008 @ 2:29 am
K O’Keefe:
If she keeps her membership of such a society secret, how do you know about it?
I’m not dismissing your comment. I’m strongly opposed to both eugenics and social darwinisim; if Euginie Scott is involved in a eugenics organization, I want to know about it.
However, it’s a pretty serious allegation to make. May I see your evidence, please?
Comment by Ubiquitous Che — May 2, 2008 @ 2:37 am
Hi Che,
I’m yet to see the film, but should I even bother? The claims I’ve heard so far sound so ridiculous and offensive (esp. Atheists back the Holocaust!) what good will watching it do?
If I do end up seeing it, I think I’d want to check this site out afterwards.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Comment by undergroundnetwork — May 3, 2008 @ 6:47 am
@Underground: You didn’t sign the Atheist Contract, saying you back the Holocaust? Retroactively? It’s a pretty weak argument, as you’d expect:
(1) Hitler aspired to wipe out all but his chosen race.
(2) This sounds vaguely like natural selection, if a person is barely literate.
(3) An aberrant political party carrying out a policy that could be described as artificial selection must be “evolutionists.”
(4) Atheism is evolution is atheism.
I’ve seen this a few times myself…
Comment by theism — May 17, 2008 @ 6:04 am
Stein says “evolution doesn’t explain why the planets stay in orbit.”
If the ignorance doesn’t kill you, it will make you stronger. Or angrier.
Also, the Jews did the “kill the nonChosen race”. It wasn’t like Hitler intended to kill them all- just all in the Reich.
Comment by Samuel Skinner — May 29, 2008 @ 5:54 am
Funny, isn’t it, when people, ad nauseum as if like puppets, spew the same ol’ same ol’ microevolution examples for macroevolution arguments!
DNA is neither an example nor proof of evolution. It is perfect proof of a designer. How could an evolutionist say look at this DNA and see how it carries the genome for a species, but turn right around and claim that it’s MUTATIONS that make for the changes necessary for the interspecies drift?
The stupid, tired finch example is bogus just as the stupiud pepper moths. Have you not studied them and discovered that there are still no examples of moths becoming anything but moths or finches becoming anything other than finches? You’re proving creationism, not evolution! There are no examples AT ALL of any interspecies drift or A SINGLE EXAMPLE of any animal remains/fossil/etc. with half a wing or a half leg!
Look–if transitional forms are to be found, which after millions and millions of cataloged species have, you’d think we’d have found even ONE transitional form, right? Paleontlogy, biology, geology, and archeology could not be based on theory only, could it? But, ah, what IS the proof for evolution that is not on virtue of an intraspecies development? Nobody questions microevolution, but we just need to see proof of macroevolution and you’ve won the case.
So far, with 150 years of research, it’s case dismissed.
Comment by Michael — June 6, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Michael, every animal is a transitory form.
For example, take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latimeria, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus
Also, I don’t understand what your argument with regards to DNA and mutations is. Could you make your claim more explicit?
Comment by Tommi — June 7, 2008 @ 8:18 am
Funny, isn’t it, when people, ad nauseum as if like puppets, spew the same ol’ same ol’ discredited, tired, flawed arguments for creation.
Thank you Michael for asking the questions that have long since been answered. It appears you have not been paying attention.
Does it strike anyone else that many of those that deny evolution cite all the same fallacious claims, particularly the old “no transitory fossils/forms (which Tommi adequately deals with.)? Is there a “how to take on evolutionists” handbook being given out to evangelical youth groups across the world. And it doesn’t matter how many times the same tired questions are dealt with, without fail, you will be asked them again. Are there any new ones going around?
Comment by undergroundnetwork — June 8, 2008 @ 10:48 am