Waz dis? A head ache blanket?

Gravelz,


I am sure many atheists and Evolutionists share your embarassment and revulsion at Hitler's appropriating Darwinism in justifying many if not most of his acts. Of course, Hitler wasn't technically an atheist: his world-view was an amalgamation of Darwinism, Roman Catholicism, and a variety of occultic ideas. Darwinism entered into his thoughts and purposes when he sought for a way to justify his eradication of certain peoples - he pointed out that Evolution involved the "survival of the fittest", and claimed that the Aryans were the fittest humans, and that the "lesser" races were dragging, and would drag, them down in their ever-upward evolution, and so deserved to be eliminated. (Of course, in pursuing the Jews, he also added the long-held Roman Catholic and Lutheran anti-Semitism which was especially rampant in Germany and Europe at the time.)

Hitler apparently wasn't "inspired" by Darwinists' actions, but by their ideas, and ideas can be very powerful things indeed. The ideas of Darwinian Evolution aided Hitler in persuading Germans that it was acceptable and right to seek to kill off entire peoples; it was the Roman Catholic Church's (along with Martin Luther's) anti-Semitic views which helped to inspire him to especially target the Jews.

Sorry I have been of the forum for a bit. I thank godsword for starting the thread, and think he makes some good points here.

Hitler is one example of the phenomenon of a person or group using whatever "intellectual justification" is handy to support their views. Hitler is not the only person to misuse the idea of biological evolution, nor the only person to misuse religion.

Going to the movie, Stein certainly tries to portray Darwinism as leading to Hitler, suggeseting that Hitler would never had done what he did without Darwin's ideas. He even provides the following quote from Darwin's Descent of Man.




However, Stein conveniently leaves out the rest of this passage.



In other words, Stein completely misrepresents Darwin's view by selective quoting.

Now, Darwin, like most white people of his day, held racial views which today we would find disappointing if not repugnant. However, it is also fair to say he was much more 'enlightened' than many of his days, including many staunch Christians.

At any rate, the problem I have with Stein is his manipulative and deceptive tactics, and these appear throughout the movie. The movie is not so much a documentary as it is propaganda.

As another example, in his interviews with Sternberg and subsequent scenes in the movie, we are led to believe that Sternberg lost his office, and even his job at the Smithsonian. He does this in a very deceptive way, never actually claiming Sternberg lost his job, but clearly saying he lost his office.

The fact is Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian and never lost any employment due to his views. He was an employee of the NIH, not the Smithsonian.

He never lost office space at the Smithsonian. Rather, he, along with several other Smithsonian researchers, had their offices moved as part of a larger reorganization at the institution. He did not lose access to the Smithsonian collections or his position as a researcher at the institution. He in fact was not "expelled" in any way from anything. The most that can be said is that he made quite a number of people upset by his actions and they expressed their disagreement with his actions in a number of ways.

This happens all the time. This is not persecution or being expelled. Stein is trying to create an image of victimization wheren none exists.

I was going to see this movie, but they said at Blockbuster it would not be out until October... but now with the comments as well as looking on Amazon and elsewhere for the remarks about it, I see it really doesn't have a strong premise... I like Ben Stein. I don't know why they didn't hit it home more!

GodLovesYou,


You should see the movie, if you have the chance. Something is being misrepresented in all this, and from my perspective, it's not Darwinism nor the movie's portrayal of Evolutionists and Atheists persecuting or seeking to persecute Christians and non-Darwinists. I haven't had much time on the computer lately (computer's sick), but I do intend to get around to detailing the specifics of the various claims being made.

I do know, however, that Sternberg was persecuted, and with great vitriol. Though he might not have been "expelled" (see the movie for some others who have been expelled for their non-Darwinian views), he was "blackballed", and would have been expelled if those over him had thought they could have gotten away with it.

Thanks Godsword,

I will take your word for it and see it when the movie comes out in Oct in Blockbuster. I thank you for your honest point of view and review!

Rose

Instead of using loaded words like 'expelled' and 'black-balled' let's be specific, and let's give evidence.

What exactly happened to Sternberg? If you say he was "black-balled", what does this mean? What effect did it have on him?

As far as the others, let's be specific there as well. What actually happened to those people? Furthermore, WHY did it happen? Were any actions taken against them the result of their views, or were their other factors at play, other reasons for their being 'expelled?'

i think it has to do with the way they have been programed darwinists who support darwin state he was spot on by what he was pressenting and when the truth is hitting you right in the face from what i have obsereved is this the people behind this dont want the rest of us relizing this

i was a big darwin fan my self even though i had a hard time going over what he was saying i believed that the apes were our ancestors i found it hard to believe that god had a say in the way we are developed in our mothers wombs

i would constantly argue with christians telling them how wrong they were by saying what i see with my own eyes god created what i see like the moon the sun the clowds the trees and every single creature that lives among us

comming from a war torn country i would use what i went threw to argue the point saying prove to me your god did all this

the christians i confronted would back off i did not go easy on the christians who i ran into


i would not mind seeing this movie my self when it comes to Australia as i like Ben steins


i dont mock god like i use to when i was an atheist


also i dont know this guys name by heart its on the tip of my lips it wil come back to me i was reading on this man who came around a scientist who was an atheist he was a big darwin fan he gave his heart to the lord wrote a book and the ones who new him are saying he was brain washed he is 75 yrs old and is in a private nursing home

it wil come to me and i wil put his name in this topic these guys are top goverment dudes they read what he had to say and stated this man is a liar and he has been brain washed its like they cant understand why an atheist as well known as him would give his heart to the lord but he has stood his ground and has shared how he came around to were he was able to repent and openly say he was wrong and acept jesus into his life a remarkable man for admitting this in front of strangers



God bless from damo

Romans14,

QUOTE

As far as the others, let's be specific there as well. What actually happened to those people? Furthermore, WHY did it happen?

Have you even seen the movie?

[Edited a day later to add: Well, I just went back and read your first post here, or the first response of yours which I quoted, and I see that you claim to have seen the movie. Perhaps your memory is not as good as it should be.]

My memory is rather good, actually. I even took notes.

However, I did not accept all of what I was being told uncritically, especially as we got into the over the top Nazi propaganda techniques. I also have researched a number of the claims after the fact. As I have noted above, there is ample reason to doubt Stein's honesty.

So, I'll throw my question out again. Let's talk specifics. Who actually got expelled and from what, and WHY!??

I will go so far as to say that not ONE of his examples can be shown to be what he claimed, namely that people were "losing their jobs" and "getting expelled" ONLY for expressing viewpoints different than mainstream scientists.

Prove me wrong. Bring evidence.

Romans14,


As I believe I've said elsewhere, because of computer difficulties I don't have much time on the Internet nowadays (actually, for the past several days I've only been able to access the Internet from a library computer, and that is of very brief duration, usually). So, I can't respond as thoroughly as I'd like.

However, from what I recall, Dr. Crocker (? Caroline Crocker?) was expelled from teaching exclusively or primarily because of her views on Creationism, in particular because she taught either that Evolution is not as clear-cut as typically presented, or because she taught that Intelligent Design (the idea that some things give evidence of having been designed) might be a better explanation for the origin of life. Of course "primarily" is not equivalent to "only", which gives you quite a bit of slippery "wiggle room", as I'm sure you knew when you made your "challenge".

But why don't you prove me wrong about Dr. Crocker (?), about my claim that she was expelled primarily for her views, or teachings, which were discordant with the "standard Evolutionary dogma"? Bring evidence.

Yes, Caroline Crocker is one of those Stein claims has been expelled. Although I think it is really up to Stein and those who support his claims to step up to the table, I will respond to your request.

I freely admit a lot of my information comes from www.expelledexposed.com and that this is not necessarily a completely objective source. However, they have documented their information from a variety of sources and I think can be trusted much more than Stein. Here is some of what they have to say about the Crocker case.



Crocker and Stein would have you believe she was "fired" for her views. In fact, professors are allowed to hold whatever views they wish. However, they are not allowed to TEACH whatever their own opinions are against the expected course content. Colleges publish catalogs with course descriptions, and instructors are expected to create syllabi for their courses which are consistent with those course descriptions. The syllabi are essentially a contract between the students and the college or university. If I was hired to teach algebra, but instead decided to spend three weeks of the semester discussing the mathematics of ancient Babylonia, I would be in violation of my contract.

If students are expecting certain course content and are getting somebodies opinions and instruction in content that is not part of the advertised course description, they very well may complain, and this is evidently what some of Crocker's students did.



In other words, Stein and Crocker make a completely unsubstantiated statement with no evidence to back it up, and which actually is contradicted by the facts.



In other words, Crocker mischaracterizes and minimizes her own actions, and furthermore does not even competently portray the actual state of knowledge, either within evolutionary science, or within the intelligent design movement. She even admits that she has no intention of teaching the content which was hired to teach. Such incompotence and insubordination alone would be, at most universities, grounds for "dismissal for cause", in other words, immediate removal from the classroom.

In closing:



In fact, Stein has offered NO evidence, only assumptions and conspiracy theories, that Crocker was fired simply for her viewpoints. If he wishes to rebut the claims made by GMU, it is up to HIM to provide evidence to the contrary. It is not up to GMU or anyone else, including me, to justify actions which are nothing more than routine staffing decisions that are made by universities every day.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Crocker which provides some of the references to newspaper articles discussing the Crocker episode.


Finally, I will point out that the situation of Guillermo Gonzalez is somewhat similar. It iw a fact that he was denied tenure, and as a result, had to seek employment elsewhere. However, this is a situation which happens all the time in higher education. In fact, 4 out of 12 tenure applications at Gonzalez's institution during this period were denied. Gonzalez has no grounds to claim he was "singled out" and no grounds to claim that his denial of tenure amounted to "viewpoint discrimination."




PS

And let's be fair. Who is really using intimidation to suppress ideas they don't like?
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...20300822_5.html.

Romans14,

QUOTE

Nancey Murphy, a religious scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., said she faced a campaign to get her fired because she expressed the view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but "so stupid, I don't want to give them my time."

Murphy, who believes in evolution, said she had to fight to keep her job after one of the founding members of the intelligent design movement, legal theorist Phillip Johnson, called a trustee at the seminary and tried to get her fired.

"His tactic has always been to fight dirty when anyone attacks his ideas," she said. "For a long time afterward, I would tell reporters I don't want to comment, and I don't want you to say I don't want to comment. I'm tired of being careful."

I only have time for one brief post here, so I will make this a brief post. First, I note that almost the entirety of the "evidence" against Dr. Caroline Crocker is based on assuming that what she presented at NVCC (did I get that right [completely from memory]?) she also presented at George Mason University. Also, whether or not she eventually found employment, Stein's claim that she was "unable to find a job anywhere" could still be completely accurate, if she found herself unable to find a job for a significant, and perhaps longer than should have been expected, period of time. In particular, the two jobs she is said to have found, one at NVCC (a community college) and the other a "post-doctoral" position for one year at something called, apparently, "Uniformed Services University", were hardly of the caliber of George Mason University, and certainly lacked the prestige or respect teaching at GMU or a similar university would have garnered for her. Currently, she is working for an ID-affiliated institution, which hardly counts as evidence that she has not been "blackballed" by the academic establishment.

Second, Intelligent Design is not Creationism, and neither is a subset of the other. They have overlapping interests in some cases, and a similar distrust of purely naturalistic processes as having sufficient explanatory power to account for life, but they are quite distinct, and I find it very frustrating, and unnerving, that so many otherwise seemingly intelligent people so often conflate them (and that they often do so maliciously, as though equating them wins the argument right off the bat).

Third, a more important issue is whether or not scientists who hold to Creationist views, or who are sympathetic to the idea of Intelligent Design, endure "persecution" (as opposed to merely collegial disrespect) within academia for their views. Are you aware that some college students (at least one that I can recall) have been denied a passing grade in a biology class (or the professor seriously considered not passing them), even though they met all the course requirements with an "A" average, simply because they didn't accept the claims of Evolution, and instead held to Creationism? I really, really wish I had more time at a computer, so I could read through the archived threads at arn.org, and present all the evidence of persecution in academia of Creationists and those accepting of even the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Fourth, I've heard of Nancy Murphy. A very liberal "Christian" (when I put "Christian" or "Christianity" in quotes, that signifies it is not a genuine Christianity). If Johnson treated her that way, and it was against the school's policy, then he was in the wrong. However, I note that she was employed at a seminary, and usually such places have a "Statement of Faith" or similar things to help identify their theological views and positions. Nancy Murphy's views and teachings on Evolution might have conflicted with the seminary's views on Evolution, and in that case Johnson would not have been in the wrong to seek to have her fired, if he first tried to discuss the matter with her. A seminary is a different creature than a university, especially a state university.

Fifth, Nancy Murphy must not be very intelligent or intellectually honest herself if she truly thinks that Intelligent Design is "not only poor theology, but 'so stupid, I don't want to give them my time' ". Intelligent Design is not "theology", and does not have any theological implications other than it would, when discerned, imply a Creator (whether of the Universe, of a particular creature, or of a plastic cup). So, for her to misunderstand ID, and then call it "so stupid" that it wasn't worth her time is quite ironic. And, many of the issues involved in ID are VERY intellectually interesting and valid - bioinformatics might have implications for ID, and a fairly recent result called, "The Topological Structure of Asynchronous Computation" (along with another result which shared with it the "2004 Godel Prize") might have powerful implications for Evolution, given that DNA in essence involves a very sophisticated sort of "computation". (One of my "side projects" is to try to read more about Topology, and to digest the paper, so I can see if it would apply to RM&NS [I believe it might prove RM&NS incapable of "reaching" certain results].) Here's a quote describing the paper:

QUOTE

"The discovery of the topological nature of distributed computing provides a new perspective on the area and represents one of the most striking examples, possibly in all of applied mathematics, of the use of topological structures to quantify natural computational phenomena." (At http://www.math.utu.fi/projects/icalp04/godel2004.html .)

And with that, I must return to work. Grrrrrrrrrrrr.... (This is so much more fun and fulfilling.)

[quote name='Godsword' date='Aug 29 2008, 03:42 PM' post='229204']
[font="Times New Roman"][size=3]Romans14,


When you start your post with "I only have time for one brief post here, so I will make this a brief post", and then post 5 paragraphs, I'm confused. You lead into your post saying they are brief, which, to me, seems like you are saying you don't want to spend time doing research, and actually back up your statements, so your comments dont have to be factual. I also find it amazing how, when presented with evidence, creationists completely ignore the facts and then argue that they are right. What part of getting dissmised, replaced, booted, sacked, 'don't come back', didn't you understand. Crocker did not do the job she was hired for. If she was blacklisted, it is her own fault. Since there is not enough evidence to prove she was blacklisted for her views, "Stein's claim that she was "unable to find a job anywhere" could still be completely accurate" is a crock, pun intended. When she teaches something completely different from the course she was hired to teach, there should be a notice put out that - 'here is a person that is not reputable'.

ID is creationism. Didn't you get the memo. There were many. The most recent one was from the Court in Dover to the School Board. Give it up, "Of Pandas and People" changes every instance of 'creation' with 'ID' and you still argue that they are not the same. I think the biggest problem with evolution for creationists is that they must confront their own mortality. You live, you die. Get over it. If you actually think that asskissing an omnipotent entity matters, thats great, but don't make the rest of us suffer. Really, it's quite easy to be a nice person without all the voodoo.

If a student was A material and they held a belief in creationism, that is one thing. But if said student was adamant in their belief to go so far as to say that the planet is 6000 years old, then, maybe, they really don't understand what was taught and are not deserving of that A.

Let me see if I get this right, it's OK for someone to break the rules if they are a fundamentalist christian, but if they are a liberal christian, you want to bitch slap them. You argue in the first paragraph that it's wrong to fire a fundamentalist christian for their views but in the fourth paragraph you argue that those 'liberal' christians don't deserve the same standards. How is it on that high horse, "My religion is better than your religion." A seminary is NOT much different than a university, and some seminaries ARE state universities; and seminaries are not exclusively christian. So, when someone at a seminary expresses their views on science, which we are supposed to believe ID is, they are wrong, but when someone promotes their religion in a science class, they are right. Amazing how the mind works.

ID might be VERY intellectually interesting but it is NOT science, so for her to call it "so stupid", I would assume she meant as scientific explanation. Considering that almost all the print on ID is public relations and not research, it does not have much credibility in science. One of my biggest problems with religion and christianity, in particular, is the hated toward those who don't think the same as the fundamentalist. So, remember, you can't spell 'fundamentalist' without 'fundament'.

djk,

QUOTE

When you start your post with "I only have time for one brief post here, so I will make this a brief post", and then post 5 paragraphs, I'm confused.

It means that at the time I make that statement, I have a time constraint, and so I expect I will only be able to make a "brief" post. By "brief", I mean I won't be able to spend much time on the post - I am a fast typer, and thinker, and so maybe my "briefs" are longer than yours.

I wear boxers, so you can't compare your "briefs". The above statement is 'brief'. The one I was responding to, was not. If, by brief you meant time, then you do us a disservice by not presenting your best arguement.

My point, in the first paragraph of my responce, was that you were shown a mountain of evidence to the contrary and still argue that what was presented in the movie about Crocker was truthful. The 'fight' between ID and the scientific community is that ID has no scientific credibility; then along comes this movie and the IDists take it as irrefutable proof that ID is as valid as F = ma. Its a farkin movie. NOT a documentary. A movie. I guess this is why it is difficult for some people to seperate 3000 yo goat herder 'stories' by from fiction.

djk,

QUOTE

I wear boxers, so you can't compare your "briefs". The above statement is 'brief'. The one I was responding to, was not.

Well, it's nice to finally meet the official arbiter of what is "brief" and what is not. Howdy.

QUOTE

If, by brief you meant time, then you do us a disservice by not presenting your best arguement.

By "brief" I meant essentially "time-constrained", and I meant this as a way of explaining why I wouldn't have time to address all the pertinent points, or do so thoroughly.

QUOTE

My point, in the first paragraph of my response, was that you were shown a mountain of evidence to the contrary and still argue that what was presented in the movie about Crocker was truthful.

Hardly. I specifically addressed some of that "mountain" of evidence, and showed how it really wasn't "evidence" at all.

Now, I'm afraid this post must be "brief" as well (even though I've quoted you three times, and have included this little portion also, it still only took me maybe 5 minutes to compose). Sadly, I must post from a library computer, when I've had an excuse to leave work to get some material, or at the end of the day, so I can't afford to spend too much time on the Internet.

If you have so little time, maybe you should address the arguement and not the fluff. You did not show in any way that the presented mountain of evidence was not really evidence. You argued that her employment was terminated and she was blacklisted as a direct result of what she taught. As well as it should be if what she taught was not what she was hired to teach. I worked at a college and I would venture that 50% of parttime faculty are replaced each year, and maybe 15-20% of the parttime faculty are still around in a 5 year span. Now, if a professor doesn't teach what they are supposed to, then I could see that as grounds for termination. But she was not fired. She was just not rehired. Why is it that she can expouse her religious views in a classroom and not be held accountable. She put herself in this position by not following the assigned syllabus.

You are forgetting that GMU does not NEED to provide ANY evidence for not rehiring a faculty member. I am only being nice by showing that GMU likely would have been justified for firing her on the spot. Again, Stein made the claim so it is entirely up to him to show that Crocker was "fired" for her viewpoint.

Secondly, there was student testimony that indicate Crocker did present at least some of the claims she made at NVCC at GMU. I would certainly allow that the evidence from GUM was not as complete, and it is certainly possible Crocker did not present everything she did at NVCC at GMU.

But again. This is irrelevant to Stein's claim.




Until such time as Stein or Crocker can prove the claim that she was not renewed because of her viewpoint this is irrelevant. People lose their jobs all the time, especially part-time faculty members. GMU has NO responsibility to see that Crocker obtains equivalent employment elsewhere. Stein and Crocker are simply whining and trying to blame GMU for Crocker's circumstances when it is none of their responsibility. Whether Crocker ever teaches at a state university again is not GMU's problem. I taught for one year at a prestigious liberal arts school as a replacement for someone on sabbatical. Since then, I have been teaching at other institutions that do not have the reputation of the first school. Should I blame the first school for this situation? It seems Stein thinks I would be justified in doing so.



I would agree ID is not identical to creationism. However, there is a lot of overlap, and it is pretty well-documented that ID only arose because creationism failed to push its way into the public schools. See the book "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" by Barbara Forrest. As noted by djk, the Panda's and People book basically cut out "creationists" and inserted "intelligent design proponents" when they concluded that using the word creationist would not work. You can't blame people for conflating these movements when so many of the same people are involved and many of them are disingenuously pushing ID simply as a tactic in their anti-evolutionary crusade.



I can find one or two cases or examples of almost anything if I look hard enough. One student does not a wide spread persecution make. Stein claims widespread, systemic, and intentional persecution. If that is the case, let's see the evidence. He, like many others, when challenged simply claims "the persecuted are out there, they just don't want to talke" or "we just haven't found them yet."

My response is stop making the claim until and unless you can back it up with more than propaganda and distortions.




See the verse that I use for my forum moniker. It is not up to you to decide who is and who is not a real Christian. This behavior is unbiblical.





I suppose if you are convinced ID has more merit than it actually does, then this is a logical response.


Murphy was or is at Fuller Theological Seminary. Rather than assume that Murphy is going against the statement of faith, let's look at the documentation. Here is their statement of purpose. See http://www.fuller.edu/about-fuller/mission...he-mission.aspx



The Mission Beyond the Mission is a long document, and I could find no position taken on ID, evolution, or creationism. One short excerpt, addressing some controversial issues, stated.



THe closest it gets is:




Certainly they have a conservative moral viewpoint. Certainly they express concern about the relationship between science and religion. I don't see that they take a doctrinaire position on ID, or evolution. THey do note there can be a clash between science and religion and that this concerns them. It reads like a "compromise" statement that is designed to acknowledge the differing viewpoints without making a hard determination on particular issues.

Finally, the above is from the "mission and purpose". Here is the statement of Faith.

http://www.fuller.edu/about-fuller/mission...t-of-faith.aspx

They do believe in the infallibility of scripture, but also believe in interpretation of those scriptures within context. There is no statement on creationism or ID.





In my view, ID deserves the criticism it gets because :

A) It has not been shown to be scientific in any way
It is a PR campaign which is actually attempting to bypass and redefine science
C) It has been unable to back up almost all of its claims. THe poster children for irreducible complexity have been shown, upon further inspection, not to be irreducibly complex.
D) Many of its proponents are dishonest in their arguments and in describing their motivation. Jonathan Wells, for example, claims in one place that he came to doubt evolution while a biology graduate student. Elsewhere, he confesses that he went to graduate school at the request of Reverend Moon in order to do battle against evolution. Again, see FOrrest's book.
E) It really is theology trying to masquerade as science. While disingenuously saying "we don't know who the designer is," it actually pushes a viewpoint which is grounded in Christian anti-evolutionary theology. THis is documented.