Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry 365 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • serotonin_wraith
    Seriously, you've done nothing to falsify the proposition in the movie that darwinism insn't a sufficient mechanism to explain the genocide of millions of innocent civilians, but a necessary one

    See above - my last post.


    Repeat until penny drops.

    Would you care to comment on the apparent duplicity of Dawkins, which is the subject of this thread?

    While I don't think this is the case, I think the absolute worst you can say is that Dawkins blundered during an interview when he didn't have an answer at hand right away. Were you expecting him to be a perfect speaker who never makes errors or wishes he'd said something differently?

    That's basically what this boils down to: Dawkins isn't perfect. Turns out he's human like the rest of us.

    I could have told you that.

  • Perry

    And this friends is what is known as check mate for Mr. Dawkins.

    Either Dawkins really believes in aliens as a context for conducting scientific discussions on the virtually infinite observable complexity of life (not to mention the probably infinite"fine tuning of the universe") or he is ashamed of his beliefs regarding what he pronounces as approved or unapproved thinking.

    He is either a nut, a coward, or an evasive charlatan. He didn't want to get caught on camera telling people what kinds of thinking was inappropriate. Aliens were the only thing he could think of to preserve his version of "intellectual freedom."

    There was no mistake here Seratonin. Dawkins caved.

    Discussions like these become useless once they've been brought to a logical conclusion, as I believe this one has.

    Off to Sunday evening church everyone.... God bless!

  • hamilcarr
    Sure it is hamilcarr. Hitler, Stalin and the eugenisists weren't insane; there was a certain logic to their evil. That logic was that certain unapproved people were simply "eaters" and a drain on society. They believed that modern man was interfering with natural selection. They sought to correct what they saw as unnatural.

    Unnatural and ... against God's will. Consider these quotes for example:

    Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65). What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. (Hitler 1943, 214)

    Hitler believed he was fighting against dark anti-God forces:

    A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933).

    After a while, Darwinism was seen as a threat for the pure Nazi-mind. Among the works to be rejected by libraries were:

    Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 27)

    Literature which absolutely must be removed:

    c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk. (Blacklist n.d.)
  • serotonin_wraith

    You can lead a fool to reason, but you can't make him think.

    The one thing I'm glad about is that Expelled didn't trick someone who wasn't sure either way in this case. Perry, you were closed off to reason before you saw the film, and you remain so afterwards. Nothing changed.

    To quote scientific facts to me about the big bang is hilarious when you ignore all the scientific facts for evolution too.

  • BurnTheShips

    I think Hitler is to complex a character to spin one way or another. Without a doubt however, Hitler "used" Christianity whenever it helped him further his ends.

    I think I will order this book:

    "This is one of the finest examples of intellectual history I have seen in a long while. It is insightful, thoughtful, informative, and highly readable. Rather than simply connecting the dots, so to speak, the author provides a sophisticated and nuanced examination of numerous German thinkers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who were influenced to one degree or another by Darwinist naturalism and their ideas, subtly drawing both distinctions and similarities and in the process telling a rich and colorful story."-- Ian Dowbiggin, Professor of History at the University of Prince Edward Island and author of A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America
    "Richard Weikart's outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and 'racial hygiene'. Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power."--Dr. Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich
    "This is an impressive piece of intellectual and cultural history--a well-researched, clearly presented argument with good, balanced, fair judgements. Weikart has a thorough knowledge of the relevant historiography in both German and English."--Alfred Kelly, Edgar B. Graves Professor of History, Hamilton College
    "Taking a middle ground between scholars on both sides, Richard Weikart has traveled far and wide to bring together a broad range of important programs, institutions, and thinkers who shaped the social and political ramification of Darwinian thought in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Germany. Many of the voices Weikart conveys appear here in English for the first time."-- Kevin Repp, Yale University


  • funkyderek


    I'm only human after all. I can't help to chuckle when I see the Dawkins ridiculed a bit.

    I'm still not sure why. It's clear you have such a passionate hatred of Richard Dawkins that you are willing to side with the lunatic fringe just so you can have a chuckle at his expense but you've given no reason for this irrational behaviour. Did he sleep with your wife or something?

    Sure, and Nazi eugenics and racial ideology was based on radio communications and the printing press! Idiocy.

    You've missed the point again. Those inventions made Nazi propaganda possible, and a far more convincing argument could be made for blaming the inventors of those means of communication than can be made for blaming the discoverer of natural selection for the Nazis' attempts at eugenics. But you're right; to do so would still be idiocy.

    Yes, and these practicioners of animal husbandry did not typically think of humans as just another animal to be manipulated. Darwininan thought, --as either espoused by him or his successors-- reduced humans to just that, highly evolved animals. The Nazi emphasis on breeding, racial purity, and eliminating "defective" human beings came from taking Darwin’s theory seriously and applying it at the level of a society. Absolutely, Darwin himself did not take these measures, but the Nazi eugenecists and their ideological predecessors saw where all this was going and did bring it to bear in a practical manner and with hideous results.

    Ah, it's starting to become a little clearer. You don't like the implications of the theory of natural selection, namely that humans are animals, apes with large brains. By seeking to associate it with Nazism, you want to "poison the well". It's a pointless exercise. Even if the Nazis had used Darwin's theories to support their actions, Darwin would be no more responsible for them than would Fritz Haber (the Jewish chemist who developed Zyklon B). And had Darwin never existed, natural selection would still be a reality. (Just as had Fritz Haber never existed, hydrogen cyanide would still be poisonous.)The likes of Perry and real one should be expected to revel in the sort of fallacious claptrap you're spouting, but don't you think it's beneath you?

    Well done on finding a book on Amazon to support what you'd already decided to believe.


    As you've apparently taken up Burn's eccentricity of referring to Dawkins as "the Dawkins" perhaps you could shed some light on why you do so. Burn doesn't seem to want to share his reasons.

  • Galileo

    Hitler was a brilliant propagandist. He sometimes couched justification for his barbarism in scientific terms because it was effective to do so, just as he sometimes appealed to religious justifications, as this also was effective. The fact is that whatever he used to justify his actions to the masses HAS NO BEARING ON WHAT IS TRUE. It is a non-issue, appealed to by the intellectually dishonest when they have no real point. When all else fails, bring out the Nazi's.

  • BurnTheShips
    You've missed the point again. Those inventions made Nazi propaganda possible, and a far more convincing argument could be made for blaming the inventors of those means of communication than can be made for blaming the discoverer of natural selection for the Nazis' attempts at eugenics. But you're right; to do so would still be idiocy.

    Had there been no Zyklon-B, the Nazis would have used another extermination method. Natural selection would still exist, but it would not have been used as a rationale for a horrible decade plus nightmare. Surely you get it don't you FD? You are a really intelligent guy! To say that Eugenics, fueled by the application of Darwinism, was not one of the strands that led to Nazi ideology, and the regime, is to be deluded. I know it is an old idea, Plato thought reproduction should be regulated by the state. Darwinism helped fuel a very ugly resurgence of these sorts of ideas in new guises. To be evenhanded, I admit that antisemitism was endemic in the German Christian community as well. Luther became a rabid antisemite later in life for example, and that has helped color things down to this very day.

    You don't like the implications of the theory of natural selection, namely that humans are animals, apes with large brains. By seeking to associate it with Nazism, you want to "poison the well".

    I drink from that well (I believe that the mechanism of evolution exists and is reasonably backed up by evidence) so why would I want to poison it? I merely want to curb the excesses. Nazi Germany was a signal example of an excess. Surely that is reasonable? Do you want a Eugenics on steroids that wishes to apply evolutionary theory to human society? I don't think so. There are still kooks like these out there, passionate advocates like you should be the first to denounce since it is used to paint all of you with the same brush.

    Perry and real one are entertaining at least. I think Perry is very off to put it nicely and I don't read his posts closely because I don't want my mind polluted.

    Real one is a simple one, I cut him some slack. He can be taught, but first he needs to be won.

    Well done on finding a book on Amazon to support what you'd already decided to believe.

    I believe it based on the evidence I have seen to date, I didn't pull it out of my ass.


  • LayingLow

    I just got back from watching the film. I wanted to know exactly what Richard Dawkins had said and with what tone. This is what I observed:

    He was asked how that first cell got here and he visually drew a blank. He said quite honestly that he hadn't a clue. Then he said that it was possible that an alien society developed and planted a "seed" here.

    He paused for a moment and said why he couldn't accept I.D. It was the implication that God had no beginning. He could accept a creator or originator that had a beginning but not one that didn't.

    The tone was definitely serious and not in jest.

    In the end he didn't say "I believe in God". He did however say that he didn't know how that first cell started.

    I can say without reserve that Richard Dawkins believes that everything must have a beginning, therefore excluding God.

    Both parties agreed to change in species over time. Technically that is the "evolution" part. However, the term evolution seems to be quite loaded language that also includes spontaneous generation. That part is not science (it is faith [not observed, not repeatable, not calibrated, etc.]). It is clear that there is no consensus among scientists as to what started the first cell. That being the case, it is a guess (in the form of a strong assertion on both sides). Both sides may assert their faith, but it shouldn't be covered as a "scientific theory". Neither of the theories are scientific.

    Adaptation, mutation, and natural selection are facts. Spontaneous generation is a religion.

  • SacrificialLoon

    Abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.

Share this