Author Topic: Upcoming "creationist" movie! (Read 7409 times)

Vandaler · « **Reply #30 on:** April 10, 2008, 03:58:07 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

This idea is taking as proven the very thing under question (which is clever, as it is totally unprovable), looking at certain aspects after the assumed fact (distorted under the lens thereof), and postulating all kinds of unobserved and unobservable "facts" from the little that has been observed.

Seems I may have deflected... Gladius, so if you wish to discuss the above, you will need to be more specific. Your sentence, though pleasing to read offers no specific for me to respond to.

Quote

As for the application in very new fields, I shall refrain from accepting such "truths" until time has shown the field to be actual science, and the men to be actual scientists.

Maybe it would help if we talked specifics rather then concepts ?

Cletus · « **Reply #31 on:** April 10, 2008, 04:28:58 PM »

I'm proposing that it be admitted on all sides that it's a crock to invoke the sancity of the Classroom against the Intelligent Design people as though the Classroom has not been the stomping grounds of Evolutionist fanatics for the past eighty years or so.

I realize that this might strike some as a "tu quoque"type of fallacy: Making that point is just part of my master plan.

I think that it's understood that Traditional Catholics have no problem with Pasteur and pasteurization and Edison and the light bulb and so forth. So I don't think that it's fair to say that "science" is a dirty word in Traditional Catholic circles. We're all using various forms of shorthand here. In the context of the controversial threads that appear on Traditional Catholic message boards "science" is a dirty word insofar as it means "the kind of false science that is taught in secular humanist classrooms, about which we are currently squawking."

Specifics.

Marital fidelity is unnatural.

Because of the monkeys we may hope that our 1000x great grandchildren will display themselves in attitudes of receptivity to ravishment and thus effect World Peace.

No response?

Cletus · « **Reply #32 on:** April 10, 2008, 04:46:09 PM »

Quote from: Vandaler

How do you propose to operate then. Not to single out, but would you consider Gladius response to be rather typical or [i

"Trad" relationship to Modern Science and Modern Academe.[/i]

No.

Cletus · « **Reply #33 on:** April 10, 2008, 05:00:36 PM »

I've seen too many Traditonal Catholics with that 1950s Me Too attitude towards Modern Science and Modern Academe to say that anyone more judicious and better inspired is "typical."

One of the saddest experiences of my life was to behold one poor fellow who tried to reconcile Catholic orthodoxy with Modern Scientism go nuts and lose his Faith before our very eyes on a message board. He ended up saying that Thomas Aquinas and the 1870 Vatican Council and the principle of non-contradiction had been proven by Modern Science to be not all they were cracked up to be by all those stupid Traditional Catholics. It got to the point that he couldn't even discuss the Knowledge in the Soul of Christ without bringing in the findings of Modern Science on brainwaves and nerve ending development and such. And these as proof that Christ could not have had the Beatific Vision until He was more highly evolved as an organism than a Babe in the womb.

But for a while there he was what I would call a "typical" Traditional Me Tooer. I hope that no one would take any comfort from this.

Vandaler · « **Reply #34 on:** April 10, 2008, 05:40:38 PM »

Quote from: Cletus

I'm proposing that it be admitted on all sides that it's a crock to invoke the sancity of the Classroom against the Intelligent Design people as though the Classroom has not been the stomping grounds of Evolutionist fanatics for the past eighty years or so.

I have no problem with I.D. being thought at any given length then a school board may choose, but not in a science class.

Quote

I think that it's understood that Traditional Catholics have no problem with Pasteur and pasteurization and Edison and the light bulb and so forth. So I don't think that it's fair to say that "science" is a dirty word in Traditional Catholic circles. We're all using various forms of shorthand here. In the context of the controversial threads that appear on Traditional Catholic message boards "science" is a dirty word insofar as it means "the kind of false science that is taught in secular humanist classrooms, about which we are currently squawking."

Funny you would choose voluntarily innocent matters but still manage to intersect with a subject that I have seen controversial. No where other then in "Trad" circles have I seen people bent on drinking raw milk rather then pasteurized. I find that amusing. That is not to say that the raw milk is a Trad debate, but I just never seen it elsewhere.

Light bulbs do seem ok though

Quote

Marital fidelity is unnatural.

Interesting and thoughtful to interject this.

It's of course an incomplete statement without it's sister statement that we, as humans have the unique capacity of overcoming our biological urges. It don't make the first statement in itself patently false.

Quote

Because of the monkeys we may hope that our 1000x great grandchildren will display themselves in attitudes of receptivity to ravishment and thus effect World Peace.

You see this being thought in which class ?

Cletus · « **Reply #35 on:** April 10, 2008, 06:54:48 PM »

I myself have never heard a Traditional Catholic lament pasteurization as an evil of modern science: I've heard only secular humanist Marxist granolaheads do that as they were chewing their mung bean and tofu salad.

As to marital fidelity, I refer to my original epitomizing of the Evolutionary dogma. The dogma is that the bugaboo of marital fidelity is contrary to Nature and an affront to the science of Evolution, just as all notions of God and right and wrong and conscience and conquering biological urges are an affront to The Modern Worldview.

I do not accept that true Evolutionists and the irreligious fanatics who control the Modern Science Classroom would allow for your moralistic afterthought . They DON'T allow for it. No more than they allow for the existence of God and the soul or the historicity of Noah's Ark.

The first statement IS false because it posits as some sort of mandate of Nature what is an effect of the Fall from Grace. It is false and juvenile and typical of Evolutionist ravings.

Do you think it acceptable to say in Science Class, "The reason why men are never faithful to their wives is that the stricture of marital fidelity runs counter to millions of years of our Evolutionary impulses"?

Do you deny that such claims are the norm in Science Classes and Science textbooks?

Do you think that there is serious science behind such claims?

Do you think that they belong in the Science Class?

Do you deny that they are a significant part of what is presented to schoolchildren as Modern Science?

Would you or would you not ban from the Science Class your own moralistic afterthought about the suppression of biological urges?

That bit of cretinous hokum about monkey-based hope for world peace comes courtesy of Carl Sagan.

I've read a bit about this upcoming film EXPELLED. I see that a lot of the controversy is not about Intelligent Design theory and Evolution per se but about the claim that the Godless Evolutionists who control the classrooms are fanatical, dishonest, and vicious ideologues who are willing to destroy a man's career if he so much as blinks in a way that could be taken as giving aid and comfort to believers in the God of Israel.

Demonstrating how all that is putting it all too mildly about the Godless Evolutionists who control the classrooms would be like shooting trout in a bucket.

You say that you could defend this and argue that but you won't.

I say that I can demonstrate this and justify that and that little by little, should this thread go on, I will.

Vandaler · « **Reply #36 on:** April 10, 2008, 07:46:13 PM »

Do you think it acceptable to say in Science Class, "The reason why men are never faithful to their wives is that the stricture of marital fidelity runs counter to millions of years of our Evolutionary impulses"?

As I said, I think it's an entirely incomplete statement.

Do you deny that such claims are the norm in Science Classes and Science textbooks?

My denial or not cannot act as a validation... if you really want to make that point, you should provide the evidence that such subject is part of a science class curriculum

Do you think that there is serious science behind such claims?

I don't regard the subject of Marital fidelity as a scientific enigma. But that sɛҳuąƖ attraction can be analyzed down at the biological level is self-evident.

Do you think that they belong in the Science Class?

No, not the way you present it.

Do you deny that they are a significant part of what is presented to schoolchildren as Modern Science?

I don't have an informed opinion on the matter

Would you or would you not ban from the Science Class your own moralistic afterthought about the suppression of biological urges?

I don't see the whole subject as a serious scientific matter. I follow your forceful lead that it's in fact part of science courses. As I said, and I repeat, I think the statement is incomplete to the point to being meaningless without the notion that we are not slave to our biological urges.

You say that you could defend this and argue that but you won't.

What I said I can defend and won't unless truly necessary is the merits of evolution. I recommend you continue asking direct questions to the very specific items you want me to react. I can't see a question I will not give my honest opinion. I just don't want to badger the forum with content that is not welcome. The discussion can go on as long the forum members can keep it interesting and civil.

Cletus · « **Reply #37 on:** April 10, 2008, 08:19:44 PM »

Carl Sagan's ghost didn't show up here with subtle put-downs of "Trads" vis-a-vis Modern Science.

You did.

Vandaler · « **Reply #38 on:** April 10, 2008, 08:37:41 PM »

I had to look him up, ignorant of who he was. Sorry you feel that way.

If "Trads" were more alert in fraternally correcting the errors of their peers as they relate to modern science, the impression I have, and that unfortunately transpired would not have existed.

Cletus · « **Reply #39 on:** April 10, 2008, 10:17:15 PM »

"And if I ask you a question you will not answer me..."

The question, for example, was not whether or not it is self-evident that sɛҳuąƖ attraction can be analyzed down at the biological level. The question was what we are to make of Evolutionists who preach to schoolchildren that the "bugaboo" of marital fidelity is unnatural because it flies in the face of millions and millions of years of Evolutionary conditioning.

Everyone knows that the latter is what the irreligious fanatics who run the classroooms try to hammer into the brains of their young victims. If it's not marital fidelity that they mock in the name of Evolution it's filial piety. If it's not filial piety it's maternal love and devotion. And so on and so on.

I'll concede that Sagan was being colorfully idiosyncratic about those supposedly inspirational uncouth monkeys.

I recall that Sagan's palavering about the monkeys became notorious. I cited it to demonstrate how supposedly intelligent Evolutionists are given to saying the most degradingly idiotic things imaginable.

I cited it in order to chide those who are so piously offended by the threat of the introduction of I.D. theory.

It is just being hypocritical to make a fuss over the threat of I.D. intrusion into The Classroom ("O, the precious minds of our young! O, that they should be sullied by what is not True! O, that the Lord of Hosts should dare to show His Face where He has no place!") when scientists such as Sagan are already firmly established there babbling madhouse obscenities which have nothing to do with science.

"... But not in the science class..."

How about in the atheist propaganda class? WHY not in the atheist propaganda class? But there are none such in our schools? There are only science classes? Well, I provided yuks galore with my reference to Trads and pasteurization and here the favor has been returned.

Now, about what evidence I have to back up my claims that my synthetic, off-the-cuff accounting of Evolutionist dogma as taught in the sacred Modern Classroom that must not be defiled by I.D. theory is valid.

There is none. Not yet. I don't think that it's necessary in this forum.

Why should I be the only one around here who provides evidence that what I presuppose is valid? "Trads say this, Trads are like that." Yeah, well Evolutionist fanatics say this and are like that.

I claim Common Knowledge as my evidence. That is not something you have to provide.

I think that everyone reading this board who has ever been to any but a Traditional Catholic or an Evangelical school and has not lived in a cave has heard variations on my synthetic representations of Evolutionist dogma a thousand times in his lifetime.

Vandaler · « **Reply #40 on:** April 10, 2008, 11:33:26 PM »

Quote from: Cletus

"And if I ask you a question you will not answer me..."

The question, for example, was not whether or not it is self-evident that sɛҳuąƖ attraction can be analyzed down at the biological level. The question was what we are to make of Evolutionists who preach to schoolchildren that the "bugaboo" of marital fidelity is unnatural because it flies in the face of millions and millions of years of Evolutionary conditioning.

As you've said, this is a Tu Quoque approach and I will let your master plan unfold as you advertised. If indeed such information is implanted in science curriculum, in the manner you outline, I oppose it to. What do you want from me exactly ?

Quote from: Cletus

"... But not in the science class..."

Now, about what evidence I have to back up my claims that my synthetic, off-the-cuff accounting of Evolutionist dogma as taught in the sacred Modern Classroom that must not be defiled by I.D. theory is valid.

There is none. Not yet. I don't think that it's necessary in this forum.

Why should I be the only one around here who provides evidence that what I presuppose is valid? "Trads say this, Trads are like that." Yeah, well Evolutionist fanatics say this and are like that.

You can ask me for evidence anytime for what I claim and I will provide, each time when possible, even though it's not necessary. But that is not the point. The reason why I proposed that you should provide evidence is that by asking if I deny xyz, by answering no, I'm providing credence to a claim for which I have reservations.

Quote

I claim Common Knowledge as my evidence. That is not something you have to provide.

I think that everyone reading this board who has ever been to any but a Traditional Catholic or an Evangelical school and has not lived in a cave has heard variations on my synthetic representations of Evolutionist dogma a thousand times in his lifetime.

Hearing the above a thousand time in a lifetime is not evidence that it's part of a science curriculum in schools. If it's not part of curriculum's, it weakens your tu quoque approach which I am hopeful, will open up into a new avenue.

Of course, asking me if me to reciprocate with evidence that there are efforts to incorporate I.D. in science class futile, since there has been many court cases on the subject, including Dover, which became internationally famous.

Cletus · « **Reply #41 on:** April 11, 2008, 12:28:11 AM »

I never said that I was taking a "tu quoque" approach.

I said that I realized that it might strike some that I was doing so.

I have gotten from you exactly what I wanted to get from you. Your statement that you'd oppose what you now say you'd oppose.

And now it is up to me to demonstrate how such "information" is indeed "implanted in science curriculum."

But I don't think that I'll be in such a rush to do that.

*

I think that by speaking of going to college (and not living in a cave) I already suggested that a good per centage of those thousand occasions of hearing the demented ravings of Godless Evolutionist fanatics had to do with an academic curriculum.

I was not saying, "The fact that all of you out there in cathinfoland know that you have heard these things a thousand times supports my claim that they are what's taught in our classrooms."

I specifically mentioned attendance at college.

I did not mention high school or grammar school only because in my earlier years I was spared exposure to the more vile aspects of that standardized Secular Humanistic brainwashing that we humorously call Education and hilariously see as threatened by hordes of I.D. Huns.

I am personally familiar with the sleaziness of the Godless Evolutionist mindset only from college. I know that the spawn of Belial who control our nations' classrooms, to no small extent because "Modern Science" is what it is, start corrupting children who are barely out of the toddler stage.

*

Maybe the reason why the scientifically inadequate among faithful Catholics are not more often the object of fraternal correction is that those who are both scientific whiz kids and signally orthodox think it beneath them to act as though they thought that were it not for those scientifically inadequate fellow Catholics that nice Mr. Atheist Man at Princeton who, in the best tradition of Modern Science, preaches that blind babies should be slaughtered, would in short order be singing praises unto Him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb.

Vandaler · « **Reply #42 on:** April 11, 2008, 07:16:18 AM »

Quote from: Cletus

I never said that I was taking a "tu quoque" approach.

I said that I realized that it might strike some that I was doing so.

I have gotten from you exactly what I wanted to get from you. Your statement that you'd oppose what you now say you'd oppose.

And now it is up to me to demonstrate how such "information" is indeed "implanted in science curriculum."

But I don't think that I'll be in such a rush to do that.

I purposefully used the word approach since I'm not crying foul. You are not committing any fallacy since you are only pointing out that I should feel so equal outrage for other topics as well. You are not arguing that I should not feel the way I do about I.D. therefore you are right, it only seems like you are committing the fallacy, but you are not. I have understood that and I'm glad to clarify it.

Has you said, if it's indeed the case, I would be opposed to it. I don't feel any problem at all about where you brought me as long you understand that I will still be equally opposed to I.D. in science classes no matter what since it unrelated.

Quote

Maybe the reason why the scientifically inadequate among faithful Catholics are not more often the object of fraternal correction is that those who are both scientific whiz kids and signally orthodox think it beneath them to act as though they thought that were it not for those scientifically inadequate fellow Catholics that nice Mr. Atheist Man at Princeton who, in the best tradition of Modern Science, preaches that blind babies should be slaughtered, would in short order be singing praises unto Him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb.

I do pose a caveat to my impression above. I don't know that it's especially a problem among "Trads". The impression gotten that science literacy is low does not mean that it's lower then average among Internet posters across the spectrum of Interest. Certainly there are forums with greater litteracy but that may be because simply the target audience for these boards are somewhat related or cross related with science. This board is not in any way. Maybe "Trads" are just average in that regards and I am quite open to that possibility.

Vandaler · « **Reply #43 on:** April 11, 2008, 07:38:27 AM »

Quote from: Cletus

I'm proposing that it be admitted on all sides that it's a crock to invoke the sancity of the Classroom against the Intelligent Design people as though the Classroom has not been the stomping grounds of Evolutionist fanatics for the past eighty years or so.

I guess it boils down to this.

No it's not a crock since the topics are unrelated. Two wrongs does not make a right.

But I have already given my conditional tacit nod that I would be opposed to behaviors such as those you outlined. The extent of my opposition would only be known after the actual facts of the matter are exposed.

And with that, I wish you a good day.

Vandaler · « **Reply #44 on:** April 11, 2008, 07:48:50 AM »

Oh, and also.

I can I suppose give my own impression or experience with the marital fidelity argument.

Of course I hear it also, but rarely formerly. I've seen it often used a zinger to get a chuckle out of men, and a rise out of women. I could even see a teacher say some things just to get a little rise and wake-up poke or, as a pitiful way to increase his (I'm assuming a men would say this) popularity.

I do have a hard time seeing this presented as a legitimate chapter of study in a curriculum though.

We all have different life experiences, and the above is mine.

Author Topic: Upcoming &quot;creationist&quot; movie! (Read 7409 times)

Author Topic: Upcoming "creationist" movie! (Read 7409 times)