I read about this upcoming movie on creationism and scientific censorship in the Remnant, and just found it's website. Under the news section, there are some pretty interesting reads... This one in particular.

Darwinism - too old to be true?

You can get all the info about the movie (out in Feb. 2008 unless the darwinists have their way!) right here...

Expelled the movie

It'll be pretty awesome if this actually gets out of the box!

Living organisms simply stay stubbornly what they are. Dogs have their nature. So does man, although man has his own intellect and a free will unlike the lower animals. Darwinism though tries to put man at the same level as lower animals. Thus, now that I realize it, this putting of man at a lower level is related to the putting of man equal to or above God in that there is a displacement of man from the nature God gave him.

Great to know. Perhaps many people would come to realize now that Dawrinism is such a stupid thing.

Let's hope and pray!

I can understand it.

I find it very refreshing.

Before Vatican II American Catholics had such a revolting "Me Too" attitude towards the Modern World. It was weird. On the one hand they had such a chip on their shoulders about bucking the Modern World on belief in God and the Virgin Birth and the indissolubility of marriage and so forth. It was as though they had an irresistible cimpulsion to make it up to the Modern World by dint of contrary backlash. So they went all out to prove themselved true children of the Enlightenment in whatever way they could get away with.

They made a mockery of the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church of Rome. They turned the notion of Invincible Ignorance into the Eight Sacrament.

They started to whittle away at belief in the miracles of the Old Testament. They started to get diabolically foxy in this area. They made it an act of Romanist piety to DOUBT that Lot's wife really turned around for a peek and got turned into a pillar of salt. They posited Catholics who insisted on Taking It Literally as being suspect of heresy: the heresy of Protestant Fundamentalism.

They embraced Darwinism. They didn't think that Jehovah would mind. They said, "Oh, there will be room for Him too, somewhere in there, if we work hard enough and squeeze Him in the back door according to our own theological lights. Not that we have to offend the sensibilities of our good scientific atheist friends and neighbors by reminding them of His existence and of the data of Revelation."

I don't understand why someone wouldn't understand why Trads would applaud the science of Intelligent Design. Even some Novus Ordo conservatives seem sympatheric to it.

And how do we feel about bringing the lousy, sentimental poetry of Atheism into science classes under cover of Modern Science?

How do we feel about telling kids raised on the Heavenly Father Whose eye is on the sparrow that whereas our benighed medieval forebears felt cozy and at home on their flat earth under the eye of their all-good and all-wise Creator, we moderns know that we are just a singularly advanced colony of apes hurtling through a universe in which all ideas of meaning and order and right and wrong and truth and falsehood are chimerical?

In discussions among Catholics of Intelligent Design and Creationism and what Pope Pius XII allowed and what he didn't there should always be constant reference to the question of Adam and Eve, a point on which Pope Pius XII did not budge. To say the least, Modern Science does not take Adam and Eve seriously.

Catholic are required to take it as an historical fact that all mankind is really descended from one man and one woman who really lived in a state of bliss somewhere on this earth and really sinned and really got kicked out, so to speak, from their Paradise. How that relates to the cavemen is something we all have to puzzle out. The Evolutionary model of how mankind developed -men mating with animals for ages until, happily, Cupid was able to bring the equally evolved together-is as unconvincing as it is disgusting.

Well, I don't know about your being wrong.

My point is that Intelligent Design would seem to be right up the Trad alley. I don't get why you were puzzled that Trads would applaud its introduction into science classes.

Now I don't get why you place ID midway between evolution and creation when before you said that it was the latter in disguise.

As ID is merely pointing out the obvious, any man with reason ought to applaud any merit in it.

All contingent beings point to a necessary Being who gave them existence.  "Nothing comes from nothing" is a rather simple statement of the truth.

The above a fine philosophical argument that deserves it's full light in philosophy class.  But I.D. poses has a scientific argument against evolution for science class.