Comments on: Expelled! An Intelligent Movie http://forgodsfame.org/2008/04/21/expelled-an-intelligent-movie/ Spreading the fame of God by reaching, building, and equipping people in the character and priorities of Christ. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:03:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Dan Miller http://forgodsfame.org/2008/04/21/expelled-an-intelligent-movie/#comment-5529 Dan Miller Thu, 01 May 2008 20:23:48 +0000 http://forGodsfame.org/?p=1042#comment-5529 It seems like there growing momentum toward <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353767,00.html" rel="nofollow">reexamining</a> what is being taught in the public schools in regard to Darwinian evolution. It seems like there growing momentum toward reexamining what is being taught in the public schools in regard to Darwinian evolution.

]]> By: Pauli Ojala http://forgodsfame.org/2008/04/21/expelled-an-intelligent-movie/#comment-5528 Pauli Ojala Thu, 01 May 2008 20:07:18 +0000 http://forGodsfame.org/?p=1042#comment-5528 Ben(jamin) Stein is under heavy artillery for 'exaggerating' or 'going easy' on the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the 'Politics-is-applied-biology' Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I. It was Charles Darwin himself, who praised and raised the monstrous German Ernst Haeckel with his still recycled embryo drawing frauds etc. in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871. If Thomas Henry Huxley with his concept of 'agnostism' was Darwins bulldog in England, Haeckel was his Rotweiler in Germany. 'Kampf' was a direct translation of 'struggle' from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Seinen Kampf. His application. Catch 22: As an indication of the evolutionary 'PUS', Haeckel's 140 years old fake embryo drawings have been mindlessly recycled in most biology text books until this millennium. Despite factum est that Haeckel's crackpot raging Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law and functioning gill slits of human embryos have been at the ethical tangent race hygiene/eugenics/genocide, infanticide, and Freudian psychoanalysis (subconscious atavisms). Dawkins is the Oxford professor for PUS - and should gather the courage of Stephen Jay Gould who could feel ashamed about it. Text book authors are making science a mockery! More from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a 'bit'): http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. In England, they are fertilizing human embryos for research purposes and pipetting chimera embryos of humans and monkeys, 'legally'. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated. I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee (contra epithumia, eros, filia & storge) (ahava in Hebrew), that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality. pauli.ojala@gmail.com Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing) http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm Ben(jamin) Stein is under heavy artillery for ‘exaggerating’ or ‘going easy’ on the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the ‘Politics-is-applied-biology’ Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I. It was Charles Darwin himself, who praised and raised the monstrous German Ernst Haeckel with his still recycled embryo drawing frauds etc. in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871. If Thomas Henry Huxley with his concept of ‘agnostism’ was Darwins bulldog in England, Haeckel was his Rotweiler in Germany.

‘Kampf’ was a direct translation of ’struggle’ from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Seinen Kampf. His application.

Catch 22: As an indication of the evolutionary ‘PUS’, Haeckel’s 140 years old fake embryo drawings have been mindlessly recycled in most biology text books until this millennium. Despite factum est that Haeckel’s crackpot raging Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law and functioning gill slits of human embryos have been at the ethical tangent race hygiene/eugenics/genocide, infanticide, and Freudian psychoanalysis (subconscious atavisms). Dawkins is the Oxford professor for PUS - and should gather the courage of Stephen Jay Gould who could feel ashamed about it. Text book authors are making science a mockery!

More from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a ‘bit’):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf

Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. In England, they are fertilizing human embryos for research purposes and pipetting chimera embryos of humans and monkeys, ‘legally’. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.

I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee (contra epithumia, eros, filia & storge) (ahava in Hebrew), that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.

pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm

]]> By: ORyan http://forgodsfame.org/2008/04/21/expelled-an-intelligent-movie/#comment-5508 ORyan Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:27:59 +0000 http://forGodsfame.org/?p=1042#comment-5508 One thing I learned about sexual selection is that in terms of evolution, it does not really work. What Dawkins is saying is that some weakness makes you more attractive. If we are selected by nature to propagate our genes because of the strength their traits express, then it is ridiculous to contend that the weakness of a potential mate would make them more attractive. Sorry Ken. <a href="http://www.thedesignoflife.net/blog/Sexual-selection-Does-the-hen-bird-really-care-about-the-peacocks-display/View/Default.aspx" rel="nofollow">Design of life - Sexual Selection</a> One thing I learned about sexual selection is that in terms of evolution, it does not really work. What Dawkins is saying is that some weakness makes you more attractive. If we are selected by nature to propagate our genes because of the strength their traits express, then it is ridiculous to contend that the weakness of a potential mate would make them more attractive. Sorry Ken.

Design of life - Sexual Selection

]]> By: Ken Rutherford http://forgodsfame.org/2008/04/21/expelled-an-intelligent-movie/#comment-5498 Ken Rutherford Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:38:08 +0000 http://forGodsfame.org/?p=1042#comment-5498 Wow Dan. I'm speechless. You have just explained why those of us who are losing our hair are so irresistable. <blockquote>Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates</blockquote> Wow Dan. I’m speechless. You have just explained why those of us who are losing our hair are so irresistable.

Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates

]]> By: Dan Miller http://forgodsfame.org/2008/04/21/expelled-an-intelligent-movie/#comment-5497 Dan Miller Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:31:48 +0000 http://forGodsfame.org/?p=1042#comment-5497 It's interesting to note the role that sex pays in the Darwinist scenario. For example, zoologist and atheist Richard Dawkins says: <blockquote>”Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on their hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the answer to all three questions is sexual selection," Dawkins said. Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates, he explained. The less hair you have on your body, the less real estate you make available to lice and other ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth keeping the hair on our heads to protect against sunstroke, which can be very dangerous in Africa, where we evolved. As for the hair in our armpits and pubic regions, that was probably retained because it helps disseminate "pheromones," airborne scent signals that still play a bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize.</blockquote> Why did we lose our body hair? Sex selection. Why do we retain some body hair? Yep, sex selection. Why do humans walk on two legs? Again, the same answer, sex selection. Why do dogs walk on all four? You guessed it, sex selection. I am struck by the connection that Dawkins “sex-is-the-savior” Darwinist viewpoint has in contrast with the Biblical warning of how a wrong view of God spins off into a warped view of sex: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. <em>For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.</em>For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. <em>For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:18-24</em> <a href="http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/04/10-ways-darwini.html" rel="nofollow">HT</a> It’s interesting to note the role that sex pays in the Darwinist scenario. For example, zoologist and atheist Richard Dawkins says:

”Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on their hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the answer to all three questions is sexual selection,” Dawkins said. Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates, he explained. The less hair you have on your body, the less real estate you make available to lice and other ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth keeping the hair on our heads to protect against sunstroke, which can be very dangerous in Africa, where we evolved. As for the hair in our armpits and pubic regions, that was probably retained because it helps disseminate “pheromones,” airborne scent signals that still play a bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize.

Why did we lose our body hair? Sex selection. Why do we retain some body hair? Yep, sex selection. Why do humans walk on two legs? Again, the same answer, sex selection. Why do dogs walk on all four? You guessed it, sex selection.

I am struck by the connection that Dawkins “sex-is-the-savior” Darwinist viewpoint has in contrast with the Biblical warning of how a wrong view of God spins off into a warped view of sex:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:18-24

HT

]]> By: mynym http://forgodsfame.org/2008/04/21/expelled-an-intelligent-movie/#comment-5483 mynym Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:18:23 +0000 http://forGodsfame.org/?p=1042#comment-5483 Somehow people have come to associate religion/"faith" with low epistemic standards as opposed to science which has high epistemic standards. They are merely different forms of knowledge which may overlap at times. One allows for things like personal testimony, tradition and so on which may be incorrect while the other will always be too myopic to see important truths by definition but both are important. For example, if we reduce ourselves to our brain events that may be important scientific knowledge but it is blind to important truths about sentience, which is the only way one can have scientia/knowledge in the first place. On the other hand the physical substrate and matter which we exist in still matters, it's just not all that matters. Somehow people have come to associate religion/”faith” with low epistemic standards as opposed to science which has high epistemic standards. They are merely different forms of knowledge which may overlap at times. One allows for things like personal testimony, tradition and so on which may be incorrect while the other will always be too myopic to see important truths by definition but both are important. For example, if we reduce ourselves to our brain events that may be important scientific knowledge but it is blind to important truths about sentience, which is the only way one can have scientia/knowledge in the first place. On the other hand the physical substrate and matter which we exist in still matters, it’s just not all that matters.

]]> By: Ken Rutherford http://forgodsfame.org/2008/04/21/expelled-an-intelligent-movie/#comment-5482 Ken Rutherford Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:06:39 +0000 http://forGodsfame.org/?p=1042#comment-5482 Right. Great point. So many of us in the church are too willing to say to the skeptics such things as: "I may be delusional but at least I'm saved" or "I'm sorry you think I'm delusional but It's what I believe" or "I'm not delusional, you are! Nyah, nyah, nyah!" We play right into the faith vs. reason assumption rather than embracing faith "based on" reason. Right. Great point. So many of us in the church are too willing to say to the skeptics such things as:

“I may be delusional but at least I’m saved” or “I’m sorry you think I’m delusional but It’s what I believe” or “I’m not delusional, you are! Nyah, nyah, nyah!”

We play right into the faith vs. reason assumption rather than embracing faith “based on” reason.

]]> By: Hugh Williams http://forgodsfame.org/2008/04/21/expelled-an-intelligent-movie/#comment-5480 Hugh Williams Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:42:46 +0000 http://forGodsfame.org/?p=1042#comment-5480 Your two phenomena remind me of this 1912 quote from <a href="http://www.marshillaudio.org/resources/pdf/Machen_Culture.pdf" rel="nofollow">J. Gresham Machen</a>: <blockquote>False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation to be controlled by ideas which prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.</blockquote> Your two phenomena remind me of this 1912 quote from J. Gresham Machen:

False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation to be controlled by ideas which prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.

]]>