Support The American Thinker
If you type “American Thinker” in my search engine, you’ll come up with scores of posts. I point you to their work all the time. It’s one of the best conservative online magazines on the Internet. Fantastic writing and reporting from editor and publisher Thomas Lifson, our friend Rick Moran, Ray Robison, Selywn Duke, Ed Lasky, Clarice Feldman, and the entire crew.
They’re having a donation drive and I encourage you to pitch in if you can at all.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Blogosphere
Stop The ACLU
» Even The Washington Post Sneers At Barry School ChoiceGateway Pundit
» Crackpot DA Pounds His Fist & Screams At Judge at Cheney TrialNewsBusters.org
» Chicago Tribune: All Obama, All the TimeRight Wing Nut House
» WILL NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE KILL CONSERVATISM?Redstate
» Obama: Billions for Pork Barrel EarmarksPajamas Media
» Must Conservatives Rally Round the Messiah?Marginal Revolution
» What are the lessons from the New Deal?
Thanks for the scoop Michelle.
Thanks so much for this tip on a great site.
The fact that this appeared on their website disturbs me:
http://americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/post_83.html
Anyone who feels their children should be exposed to this propaganda should be charged with child abuse.
Done and done, Ms. Malkin- thanks for pointing this out. As much as I “lovingly lift” from their articles at my little bloggie, they deserve a contribution from me.
And note to the RNC and Sen. McCain’s campaign: Donations will come your way, when you both begin to listen to your supporters, not the other way around.
……a follow-up to my prior post:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
The american thinker is always my second stop each and every morning after MM.com. A must read (along with MM.com) for those who wish to stay informed.
On May 3rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm, guitarguy said:
The fact that this appeared on their website
disturbsencourages me:http://americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/post_83.html
Anyone who feels their children should be exposed to
thisDarwinian propaganda should be charged with child abuse.So you’re saying that perhaps the government should dictate to people what they should and should not watch. That any dissenting opinion should not see the light of day?
Lovely.
Charge me then, because my children will most assuredly continue to be educated beyond the secular progressive “religion” of Darwinism.
Yes, it is an excellent site.
These last two weeks or so I’ve been spending more time there than other sites I visit. The American Thinker is now one of my “tabs” on IE7. And the article about Pope Benedict is very well done.
Disturbed by the truth that your fellow Darwinists include Hitler among the more infamous members? Darwinism is a theory, not a law. Learn the difference. You are “disturbed” that children are exposed to Christianity, but I’d bet you have no problem at all with them being exposed to “sex education” while in grade school (including promotion of homosexual orthodoxy), religious orientation in Islam, nor the fantasy of “global warming” theology.
Michelle,
Methinks at some point the evolution debate might deserve an open thread. Maybe you’ve done it in the past, and I know it has come up, but it seems there’s a lot to thresh out. Perhaps in the event of something newsworthy related to it….like a new movie release…..
I’ve added the American Thinker to my favorites, as well. I don’t surf around much, so when you show something good like this I check it out. Thanks!
MSNBC has published several negative reviews of Ben Stein’s movie. I read many of the viewers’ comments at the end of one of the reviews. One of the most common complaints was the movie’s assertion that Hitler was influenced by Darwinism. It seemed to really upset them. Instead, they claim it was Eugenics, not evolution, that drove Nazism.
The left wants to rewrite history and claim no real connection between Eugenics and Darwinism. Yet a common definition of Eugenics states: “Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution”. The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. Nope, no reason to suspect darwinian influence there!
I have never seen a greater attempt by scientists to censor ideas as I have seen in recent years by proponents of evolution and global warming. If the science is really that settled and incontrovertable, it should have nothing to fear from opposing viewpoints. All great scientific discoveries, including evolution, initially arose from minority viewpoints and were usually opposed by the establishment. Why would any lover of science want to stop progress by limiting debate now?
I checked out this website. Its opening statement causes it to crash on it’s face right out of the gate:
First lie: the site claims that Expelled isn’t a documentary but just propaganda.
Ok… The type of movie is documentary (where you’d find it at Blockbuster). It would be next to “An Inconvenient Truth” and “Fahrenheit 911″ The movie has a premise and attempts to support that premise with evidence, just like those other two movies. If Expelled isn’t a documentary, then neither or those other movies.
Second lie: The Expelled-Exposed site calls it “anti-science propaganda”. This is the oldest retread demagogic argument in the Darwinist-book-of-intimidation-tactics. Why are we given the choice of either believing in God or believing in science??? …as if one precludes the other. As if the Darwinist fears that if the God-believers get their way that intellect and pursuit of scientific truth will be thrown out of the class room. Science is figuring out how the universe works. Belief in the Creator is how we find meaning in that universe. In fact, the God-believer has in inherent advantage over the Darwinist in the use of science to discover truth. It’s like the advantage of having a box to look at when solving a jigsaw puzzle. The Darwinist just looks at the individual pieces - so to speak. While the God-believer assumes that there is an overriding consistent intelligence that is the common thread of all existence.
To be given a choice at either believing in God or science is at best a non sequitur and at worse, an attempt to promote a self-centered ideology that can not stand up under the most elementary cross-examination (talk about propaganda - sheesh).
Finally, the website says that Expelled aims to cause the appearance of controversy where there is none. What? That is the most absurd statement. I’ve got news for those people: not only is there the “appearance of controversy” there **IS** actual controversy. The entire point of the movie and this full-of-baloney expelled-exposed website reflects that controversy. This very post is part of that controversy. Look here it is. Do you see me? It’s controversy waving at you. What they really mean, I suspect, is that this movie is an attempt to shed the light of truth on the Darwinist movement and their website is attempting to discredit and minimize it’s affect. Well if there is no controversy, why did they make the effort to create the website? Their ridiculous statement is tantamount to saying “Don’t pay attention to that man behind the curtain.”
The donation is on the way.
/s/
jose
To blame Darwin for the Holocaust is akin to blaming The Beatles for the death of Sharon Tate (…because Manson made the ‘Helter Skelter’ reference…)
It’s also akin to blaming the manufacturers of a hunting rifle for the mayhem caused by Charlie Whitman while he was in that Texas tower. (You see, the rifle was intended for hunting animals, not humans. But since we can blame Darwin for the holocaust we can, therefore, blame the makers of the rifle for the deaths of those Texans. Got it?)
There is no such thing as ‘Darwinism’, just as there is no such thing as ‘Einsteinism’ or ‘Newtonism’.
The theory of evolution has come a long way in the past 150 years, and has held up remarkably well. Keep in mind that a LOT of progress has been made in the past 15 decades, and that includes Evolution as well.
Why the members of this forum would reflexively connect it with ‘the left’ is beyond me. There are numerous catholic/christian scientists who completely disagree with Ben Stein and the ‘creationist’ philosphy.
Want more proof that Ben has lost his mind?
Here ya go:
******************************************
In an interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Ben Stein said the following amazing thing in an interview with Paul Crouch, Jr.
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right.
Stein: … Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
******************************************
Ben equates the Nazi’s working in the gas chambers - the SS, mind you - with scientists.
Jonas Salk
Albert Einstein
Aristotle
Archimedes
Marie Curie
Isaac Newton
Galileo
DaVinci
Tesla
Members of the SS
……..they’re all the same in Ben’s mind.
The problem is not with ‘creationism’ on it’s own, the problem is with wanting to teach ‘creationism’ as science, which it is not.
Do you want to believe in a higher power?
Ok. Not a problem.
Do you want to teach that same belief as science?
Uh-oh……………….we got a problem.
txvet2 you make a lot of assumptions.
“Darwinism is a theory, not a law. (No, it’s not. EVOLUTION is a theory, and so is Gravity. So what’s your point?)
“You are “disturbed” that children are exposed to Christianity (No I’m not. And I have absolutely NO idea how you reached that conclusion. I think it’s referred to as a ’straw man’ argument. To brainwash children by teaching them that the Earth is only 6,000 years old is simply disgraceful. To tell any child that the dinosaur skeletons in a museum are merely ‘art’, and are not real is criminal. Again, these fallacies are being taught as science, and it is wrong.), but I’d bet you have no problem at all with them being exposed to “sex education” while in grade school (including promotion of homosexual orthodoxy) (Actually, I do.) , religious orientation in Islam, nor the fantasy of “global warming” theology.” (Wrong again. It has been proven that the world climate has gotten warmer, but it has NOT been proven that man is the cause of it. See? Because it hasn’t been proven that man is the cause of global warming, I’m not on that band wagon. Got it?)
The whole argument here - regarding creationism - is PROOF. The ID’er’s believe that a higher intelligence is responsible for……whatever.
OK.
Prove it…….
Here’s a perfect example of how to completely screw-up a child:
http://www.glumbert.com/media/ruinmuseum
Anti-semitism was present long before Charles Darwin arrived.
Are you all implying that Charles Darwin was an anti-semite…?
Papa Louie:
“Why would any lover of science want to stop progress by limiting debate now?”
Who’s limiting the debate? Scientists and ID’ers have been debating, and the ID’ers can never backup/prove their statements. And their beliefs don’t meet scientific criteria. And if they want it taught AS science, it MUST meet the same criteria as all other accepted branches of science.
JetJaguar:
“Why are we given the choice of either believing in God or believing in science??? …as if one precludes the other.”
No. You can believe in both. But you have to respect one as Science, and the other as a belief. The Bible is NOT a science book.
“…this full-of-baloney expelled-exposed website…”
How, exactly, is it full of baloney?
“…the website says that Expelled aims to cause the appearance of controversy where there is none. What? That is the most absurd statement.”
No, it is rather accurate. ‘Expelled’ implies that scientists have been fired and have lost income because of their beliefs in ID. This has been proven false, and it’s right there on the ‘Expelled: Exposed’ website. ‘Expelled’ attempts to create a controversy based upon lies (that people lost their jobs) and they failed.
“First lie: the site claims that Expelled isn’t a documentary but just propaganda.”
Again, that’s a pretty accurate statement. Neither Ben Stein nor the producers of this ‘documentary’ offer any credible evidence - scientific or otherwise - showing why ‘creationism should be taught as science. They’ve stated that people have been blacklisted and rendered unemployable because of their belif in creationism, yet they offer no proof. The examples they use have been clearly discredited at ‘Expelled: Exposed”.
I’ll wind this up by stating that I have absolutely no issue with anyone believing in a higher power. If it works for you and gives you peace of mind, then I have no argument.
However, the desire to teach an unproven belief, story, anecdote, whatever - as science - is foolish, and very dangerous.
And do any of you seriously believe that there were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?
Do you seriously believe that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is only 6,000 years old?
Do you seriously believe that there were dinosaurs in the garden of eden with Adam and Eve….?
If any of you answers “Yes’, then I’ll just stop here and not waste any more of my time.
The previous post is proof positive that at least some humans didn’t evolve from apes.
parrots, maybe …
Wow. I think guitar guy was gunning for an opportunity to attack the movie ‘Expelled.”
How do you feel about American Thinker? Or did the fact that they published a favorable piece about Ben Stein’s production ruin it for you?
Did on Friday but thanks for getting the word out there Michelle….must keep these great conservative blogs up and running…they are the only sanity in a world run by the media wing of the Democrat party.
Corona:
I have no idea what your comments were meant to imply, other than an attempt at an insult.
……..and humans-did-not-evolve-from-apes…..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html
SHoward:
No. I’m not gunning for anything.
‘Expelled’ has already been ‘attacked’ (Actually, ‘debunked’ is a better word.) rather well on other websites. I’d checked into MM’s website the same as I do every day and read her post. When I went to the AT website I thought it looked familiar. I poked around and realized that this was the website with the favorable review of ‘Expelled’. (My first and only encounter with American Thinker was of their ‘Expelled’ review). Based upon the review I felt that it might not be a site for me. I didn’t trash the site, nor did I trash the reviewer. I merely took a pass.
I’m somewhat puzzled that there are no comments regarding: Ben’s ’science = killing people’ statement.
And does anyone care to comment regarding the ‘ruinmuseum’ link I’d posted…?
Ben’s ‘documentary’ is based upon lies and half truths. In interviews, he argues that ‘Darwinism’ does not explain the origin of life………..nor does it explain thermodynamics…..nor does it explain gravity.
And it shouldn’t.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with ANY of those subjects.
(And the origin of life, and origin of species are two entirely different matters.)
Does anyone want to address the actual points I’ve made, or would you rather continue with the insults and incorrect assumptions?
I also in no way meant to hijack this thread. My apologies to MM, whom I admire greatly and whom I always enjoy seeing on TV.
guitar guy,
I hope you know I don’t mean to provoke an arguement. Like you said to me once on a thread a while back — like two guys sitting there having a beer and talking about it.
I just thought it was a little odd, that’s all, that on a thread about the American Thinker, which I went to and liked, you seemed to pick out that one article. I really hope it didn’t spoil it for you, because generally you and I have the same politics and common sense.
As for commenting on the movie, I haven’t seen it yet, and do not want to speak out of my posterior. (I’m not a liberal.) It seems you’ve seen the movie, so I would be at a disadvantage.
I did watch the clip about the museum. There is one thing, maybe two I found interesting.
1. The curator of the museum welcomed the creationists to give all the tours they wanted, as he didn’t see any problem letting them have their say. When I read interviews from people like Richard Dawkins, however, I am left thinking that prominent evolutionists do not welcome opposing points of view.
2. According to a Science channel special some time ago, T-Rex had the teeth of a vegetarian. That would have coincided with the view of the creationists in the video that T-Rex would have eaten veggies in the Garden.
I’m just sayin, since you asked. I don’t really want to hash this out here until Michelle opens a proper thread; that way we can see a lot more commenters.
Thanks for the link!
I believe that knowledge is power. How can our children make informed decisions when they are denied alternative views on theories of creation, etc., based on the idea of separation of church and state. That was never intended by the founding fathers who are probably rolling over in their graves. Learning about alternative beliefs is not the same as being told only this one is true (Darwinism) and they cannot learn about Intelligent Design, etc., because it flies in the face of “science”.
Keeping our children ignorant will be one of the downfalls of our society whether the topic is creation, global warming or whatever.
……*sigh*……..
No one is saying DON’T teach creationism - on it’s own.
The argument is when people want Creationism taught AS SCIENCE.
And - again - there is no such thing as ‘Darwinism’.
You can believe in God (or a ‘god’) AND be a scientist.
NO ONE is saying “You must believe in one or the other!”
(And if they are, they’re idiots.)
“How can our children make informed decisions….”
If they’re being lied to, and then they use that false information to make a decision, then their decision won’t really be ‘informed’.
And I’m referring to the museum example, and telling children that the fossils shown are merely ‘art’, and stating that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old.
Those are lies.
Those children are being lied to.
“Learning about alternative beliefs…”
Stop right there.
Science is NOT a belief.
We’re talking about two completely different subjects: science, and belief (religion).
Alternate beliefs would be someone coming to a catholic school and insisting that the Koran be taught….or that Scientology be taught.
Those are beliefs.
They are not science.
re: The museum curator….
He has no choice….he cannot prevent people from entering the museum, provided they’ve paid an entrance fee - if applicable.
And I think if the museum were told to hire those 2 clowns as tour guides, the curator would - hopefully - laugh and show them to the nearest exit.
For anyone to merely brush aside scientifically proven evidence that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago is just downright stupid.
That isn’t meant as a cheap shot, either. Those 2 guys are just idiots.
The universe is much older than 6,000 years……it’s been proven……there is no argument.
re: T-Rex as vegetarian
It was probably a quote from that yo-yo, Ken Ham.
That man was truly a moron, first class.
http://thedesigninterference.blogspot.com/2007/04/t-rex-was-vegetarian-i-kid-you-not.html
re: Richard Dawkins ‘not welcoming an opposing point of view’.
Dawkins approaches the subject rationally, and using proven scientific arguments to make his case. If an opposing point of view boils down to ‘a miracle occurred’, or ‘a higher power designed ‘X’, then I would understand his reluctance to ‘debate’ that person.
Dawkins argues based on proof, and the creationist argues based on ‘faith’.
re: Ben Stein
The man wears glasses, so he probably visits an eye doctor every year.
Ben does not entrust his vision to his rabbi, he entrusts it to his doctor.
A doctor……someone who went to college and studied biology and anatomy….also known as SCIENCES.
Ben was also a salesman for a product called ‘Clear Eyes’.
My guess is SCIENTISTS probably created it.
What it comes down to is this:
Before you get on an airplane, it can be inspected by either and airplane mechanic, or a rabbi.
You need open-heart surgery.
It can be performed by either a highly-skilled heart surgeon or a Buddhist monk.
You want to baptize your child.
You can choose either a nuclear physicist or your parish priest.
Guitar-Guy, you don’t have children, do you? I pray that if you don’t, that you will have some, and then (assuming that you are any kind of a loving caring father - which you probably will be or are) you will see the problems of teaching that science provides all answers to all questions. There are some questions that science can not answer, yet we are “hard-wired” to ask them. There are some things that we need. We didn’t ask to be born with the need to need those things. We just do need them. …and if we need them, then there is something “out-there” that must meet that need, else we wouldn’t need it. We wouldn’t be thirsty if there was no water. We wouldn’t be lonely if there were no friends. We wouldn’t feel the need for perfection, happiness, meaning, and living forever if it was not possible to meet that need. It’s not a proof, but it sure is strong enough of an argument to cause me to make that leap-of-faith. Its not clear in the scriptures that God created the universe in seven twenty-four hour periods or something longer. Neither is it clear that the universe formed in millions or billions of years as a result of random chemical processes, and any attempt to teach that as absolute truth to children is equally wrong to your concern about creationism being taught.
It is wrong to teach children that only science can provide all the answers. It is impossible to live, must less teach, in an amoral, logic-only, non-religious, science-be-all, context. As I said earlier, we are hard-wired to “believe”.
It’s not a question of whether or what is our belief (i.e. faith)… it’s what our faith will be. So, teaching children that the Earth was created over eons and billions of years, that they are just animated pond-scum, that there is no right or wrong, that there is only nothingness after death, is equally wrong, in my opinion, as your opinion that teaching that there may be something that transcends our “meaningless” existence. In other words, you are guilty of the “sins” of which you accuse the “Creationists”.
Even the self-proclaimed atheist is only professing his un-belief. That is, he (she) is actively suppressing belief. ..like the jilted lover who says to the rejector “I didn’t think about you today. In fact, I spent all day **not** thinking about you”
I ask you, what good is it to teach our children that 2+2=4 if there is no moral context or direction? We teach our kids all of these facts with the goal of them getting a better education, so they can get a better job, so they can buy better things, so they can have a better life… but is that really better? That’s what is happening in our culture and in our schools and with our children and with ourselves. We’ve lost our way. What good is science alone if it doesn’t mean anything to anyone? We’re dying as a nation because we don’t have a direction. We can debate this stuff all day, but the hordes are massing and life is running short. Let’s both of us get on to the real meaning of life and teach our children that there is a good that transcends this world… that there is a meaning that makes our struggle worthwhile… that there is a lost world that we can - humbly and hopefully - make a difference (and that we can be helped by others, too).
I don’t want to kick science out of the classroom. I don’t want to have every answer on the test to be “because Jesus said so”. I want our children to have their minds developed beyond either of our imaginations. I want them to thirst for knowledge, truth, and love…
JetJaguar:
Much thanks for the polite rebuttal.
“…you will see the problems of teaching that science provides all answers to all questions. “
Anyone who believes that science provides all answers to all questions is a fool.
What time is it?
What’s the name of that song?
What’s your name?
What did I eat for breakfast?
Simple examples, but science is not required for anyone to answer those questions.
“We didn’t ask to be born with the need to need those things. We just do need them. …and if we need them, then there is something “out-there” that must meet that need, else we wouldn’t need it.”
No offense, but I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make here. What ‘things are you referring to?
It’s very possible to want something that just does not exist.
And you’re implying (I think) that the only stuff that exists is stuff we want/need.
“We wouldn’t be thirsty if there was no water.”
No, we’d be dead. Humans require water. And how would you explain all of the things that mankind has created? You say that we’re thirsty because there is water. In other words: We want ‘X’ because ‘X’ exists. Yet we enjoy many things today that have been created by man. So, if they weren’t always available……then why are they here now? Why did we create them? (Because we wanted them!) So we could also say ‘X’ doesn’t exist, but I want ‘X’. I’m sure early man asked the same “Why am I here?” questions that most of us still ask. He looked at the sky, saw the sun, and decided that it must be the source of life and decided to worship it. That answer – that he chose to believe as correct – worked for him. As time went on and man progressed he discovered that the big fireball in the sky is not ‘god’. It’s basically a big orb of nuclear activity. And there are billions of ‘em!
“Neither is it clear that the universe formed in millions or billions of years as a result of random chemical processes, and any attempt to teach that as absolute truth to children is equally wrong to your concern about creationism being taught.”
The random chemical process/origin of life, something that science favors, is thought of as a punchline by creationists. Yet the thought of an unseen entity creating everything is perfectly acceptable. Again, as a religion I have no issue. But as a science it’s downright ridiculous.
“It is wrong to teach children that only science can provide all the answers. “
If someone is teaching your children that science provides ALL the answers, then you should immediately seek a different teacher.
“It is impossible to live, must less teach, in an amoral, logic-only, non-religious, science-be-all, context.”
Agreed! But who’s advocating that lifestyle? Scientists? Which ones?
Also, I’m bothered by equating a ‘non-religious’ lifestyle with lawlessness and a disregard for decency. The implication being that religion is the ONLY reason for the goodness of mankind. Let’s give mankind more credit.
“As I said earlier, we are hard-wired to “believe”. “
No disrespect here, but that is entirely your opinion. I’m more inclined to think we are hard-wired to ask questions and get the correct (provable) answers.
“Even the self-proclaimed atheist is only professing his un-belief. That is, he (she) is actively suppressing belief…”
Perhaps ‘suspension’ of belief is what you’re implying.
Also, I want to be clear that atheists and scientists are not the same thing.
“So, teaching children that the Earth was created over eons and billions of years, that they are just animated pond-scum, ..”
Again, no disrespect, but referring to all life as animated ‘pond scum’ is just ridiculous.
Keep in mind that the Bible does state that man was made from dust, and that woman was made from the rib of an entity created from dust….
“… that there is no right or wrong…”
Who is stating that there is no right or wrong? Where are you getting your info from? Please show me the websites, or scientists, who are spouting that garbage.
Right and wrong exists, regardless of whether there is/isn’t a ‘god’.
“… that there is only nothingness after death, is equally wrong, in my opinion, as your opinion that teaching that there may be something that transcends our “meaningless” existence.
Why would you refer to your existence – or the existence of mankind – as ‘meaningless’?
Look back on all of the wonderful advances that mankind has made….the technology, the art, the different cultures, the sciences.
Would they be of less value because a higher power might not exist?
“ In other words, you are guilty of the “sins” of which you accuse the “Creationists”.”
Creationists are implying that there is ‘something’ after death, and those who disagree are asking for proof. And I don’t know that I (personally) have accused anyone – Creationist or otherwise of having ‘sinned’. No offense taken.
“I ask you, what good is it to teach our children that 2+2=4 if there is no moral context or direction?”
Why would you, or anyone, want to, or need to, involve morals with mathematics???
“We teach our kids all of these facts…..so they can have a better life… but is that really better?”
That depends on a whole host of variables that an individual would encounter during their journey through life. Some people have good lives, some people have great lives, some people have lousy lives.
Wealthy, educated people drank the kool-aid at Jonestown.
People born into extreme poverty have achieved fame, fortune, and happiness.
“That’s what is happening in our culture and in our schools and with our children and with ourselves. We’ve lost our way. What good is science alone if it doesn’t mean anything to anyone?”
Not sure what you mean by that last sentence, and who’s implying that we need ‘science alone’..?
“We’re dying as a nation because we don’t have a direction. We can debate this stuff all day, but the hordes are massing and life is running short. Let’s both of us get on to the real meaning of life and teach our children that there is a good that transcends this world……that there is a meaning that makes our struggle worthwhile… “
OK. But there is a ‘meaning’ regardless of whether there is a ‘god’. I’m getting the impression (and correct me if I’m mistaken) that you feel that, without ‘god’, life is meaningless. That’s sad.
“..that there is a lost world that we can - humbly and hopefully - make a difference (and that we can be helped by others, too). “
This nation is dying because we lack leadership with ‘balls’. A country can only be as great and respected as its leadership, and by example. If a leader refuses to stand before the world and defend himself – and his country - by exposing the lies put forth by those who want to see this country die, then our collective morale suffers. (I voted for ‘W’ twice, but I won’t miss him when he leaves.)
“I don’t want to kick science out of the classroom. I don’t want to have every answer on the test to be “because Jesus said so”. I want our children to have their minds developed beyond either of our imaginations. I want them to thirst for knowledge, truth, and love…”
Sounds very good to me. But many of our children will grow up to become scientists, doctors, physicists, engineers, etc., and will be truly disappointed that the adults they trusted lied to them because of a belief.
JetJaguar, you appear to be a decent person, and I always appreciate an ‘insult-free’ rebuttal. But please keep in mind that I-do-not-have-a-problem-with-anyone-believeing-in-a-higher-power. I’ve made that point time and time again. We don’t allow just anyone to inject us with just anything. We only allow those who’ve studied medicine and biology to do so. When we send humans and satellites into outer space, we entrust those decisions to people who’ve studied engineering, astrophysics, meteorology, chemistry, etc.
Anyone, ANYONE, who tells you to NOT ask questions is a dangerous fool. The problem arises when the correct – scientifically proven – answer is given, but is countered with: “But that’s not what the Bible says….”
And what do we do regarding those who worship other ‘gods’? You follow the Bible, but others who believe in their ‘god’ with equal fervor would label you an atheist to their belief. And as an atheist (in their eyes) you will be punished in the hereafter.
My point is: Which ‘intelligent designer’ gets the credit? The god of Abraham? Allah? Buddha? Which one? Does it change as we travel from country-to-country? This ‘creationism vs. evolution’ argument opens a really huge can of worms with clearly no winner.
“I want them to thirst for knowledge, truth…”
Speaking of truth, let’s return to the museum scenario/video for a moment: What’s going to happen to those same children when they’re given an assignment regarding earth science? They were taught the 6,000 year story, but science has proven – PROVEN - a multi-billion year history. Those children will fail. A belief/religion has interfered with this particular aspect of their education, and they will suffer for it.
You’ve stated that we, as a nation, ‘don’t have a direction’.
Well, let’s look at the direction we’re headed.
We’re teaching our children – our babies, our FUTURE – that scientists are wrong.
Again, we’re not teaching them that science doesn’t have all the answers (which is acceptable), we’re teaching that science is flat-out w-r-o-n-g!
The creationist agenda is to teach non-science AS science.
This is dangerous and wrong and shameful!
………and that’s where we’re headed………
……….and Ben Stein still deserves a good kick-in-the-ass!
Here’s a quick, 5-minute clip that sums it up pretty well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58UDTq3kaZM&feature=related
Again, good rebuttal!
All the best!
Guitar guy,
Any thoughts on this?
I’m not familiar with the anthropic principle. This is the first time I’ve been informed of it. I’ve just read Vox Day’s article, but the basic outline of AP seems to be:
“The anthropic principle has been an embarrassing problem for secular scientists in recent decades due to the way in which the probability of the universe and Earth just happening to be perfectly suitable for human life is very, very low.”
…….thank goodness it’s not zero.
And I’ve just now noticed that he states ‘human life’.
That brings up the question: What is the probability of ANY other life-form in the universe?
That famous wheelchair-guy weighs-in:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html
This is an interesting read:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Extraterrestrial%20life.htm
re: Dawkins
I’m aware of him and think he’s done a good job of rebutting the hardcore creationists. However, I am not in lock-step with his beliefs and attitudes.
Thanks for the links, guitar guy. They were interesting, although I have to say I thought Hawking almost kinda rambled. He seemed to me to be making a lot of assumptions, and I haven’t ever read him before so I don’t know if that is typical or not.
As for types of life, I know there may be many things that classify as life. Hawking touched on that, too. But the debate we were having is about human life and evolution, specifically. (Not being arguementive, it’s too late for that, I’m sleepy.)
I thought you might like Vox Day. He’s a good solid libertarian, to the right of a typical conservative. He was on every Monday at World Net Daily, but yesterday Roger Hedgecock was in his place. On matters economic and social the left can’t quite touch the guy. He’s one of the reasons I learned about Dawkins.
Having read your earlier responses, the thing I’d like to reiterate about Dawkins is that he does seem to be the kind of guy that would state “if it didn’t happen the way I suppose then it must have been God, and I don’t believe that so it must have happened the way I say.”
My whole position has not been one of supporting creation but one of refuting the specifics of evolution. Having read the body of thought I do not see conclusive scientific testing that supports the theory. There is a lot of evidence, yes, but it is not in my view conclusive. I’m not arguing that it must have been God, just that the current theory does not appear sufficient.
I’ll leave you with a challenge, mainly because I haven’t been able to find it myself, and you seem very good at research. — Several weeks ago I read a story online of 15 scientist and ‘natural philosophers,’ whatever that is, discussing the mechanism of Natural Selection. They stated they felt the current theories were not sufficient, so they were trying to piece together something new. The problem? — I can’t find the darn story again to save my life! If you can dig it up, I’d greatly appreciate it. They say they will publish the findings next year, and I am interested in what they say.
See ya….
Guitar Guy,
Just saw your post. Haven’t gone through it in detail yet, but I suspect that we are talking at cross-purposes and probably agree more that disagree.
More later.
Regards…