7/6/09

Charles Darwin - Voyage That Shook The World

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , ,

5 comments:

  1. bobxxxxJuly 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM

    One reason the number of atheists is rapidly increasing is because of retarded cowards like yourself who are terrified of modern biology. You disgrace all religious people with your hopeless stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. KenJuly 6, 2009 at 5:39 PM

    Bobxxxx,
    Thanks for checking in.

    I see that you are incapable of concocting a cogent comment and unable to respond to the post in the manner of reasoned discourse.

    Thus, you are left to take the, sadly, typical atheist tact of arguments for embarrassment and arguments from ridicule.

    Keep in mind that just because something makes you angry does not mean that it is wrong.

    You are the very personification of the evolutiondidit crowd which I referenced in the post.

    How very sad.

    aDios,
    Mariano .

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJuly 7, 2009 at 4:03 AM

    Its quite obvious all these worldview documentaries are edited to suit the writers personal objective. They can be informative but should be seen as one view and people should be encouraged to look from all angles

    ReplyDelete
  4. RexTheDogJuly 7, 2009 at 8:50 PM

    Actually, he did not even bother mentioning to what he was referring by “this matter”: the Darwinian theory of evolution with the conveniently concocted byproduct of affirming atheism? The sort of natural selection which anyone can observe? Evolutiondidit? Charles Darwin biography? What?

    PZ Myers was responding to the tag line of the film: "One man, one voyage, one book ignited a controversy that still rages today". Therefore, it is clear that PZ was commenting on the controversy that was ignited by the contents of the book, On the Origin of Species, which is the idea that the diversity of life on this planet is the product of evolution by natural selection. PZ wants to make it clear that the filmmakers are being misleading if they are claiming that this idea is controversial among scientists today.

    It doesn't appear that PZ has seen the movie, therefore it shouldn't be surprising that he does not comment on the content of the film. Instead, he rightfully attacks the filmmakers based on the evidence that is currently available to him. First, he attacks the misleading tagline. And second, he attacks their tactics for obtaining interviews, which was less than forthright. It was in this way that he compared the film to Expelled.

    Actually, it does not matter; the point is “there is no scientific controversy anymore on this matter” and so it must be true—right?!?!

    Actually, yeah. A scientific theory is always tentative, but when it makes predictions that could easily be falsified and yet have not, after 150 years, that's a really good sign that we're on the right track.

    The important thing to keep in mind here is that the theory of evolution by natural selection is not special in this regard. All scientific theories are true to the degree to which we are unable to falsify them. As you stated, "It also notes various places where Charles Darwin’s ultimate conclusions were based on his limited observations." That is surely true. But if the film even hints that this fact is atypical of scientific theories, then it is being misleading. The statement you made also holds for germ theory and the theory of gravity and every other scientific theory of which I am aware.

    I actually applaud CMI for making this film. I just hope that they will continue the series and discuss the limited observations that led to Kepler's laws of planetary motion, the special theory of relativity, and so on. They will be doing their audience a great service to demonstrate how the criticisms of Darwin apply equally to all of science, and yet theists accept the vast majority of science while paying special treatment to evolution, simply because they don't feel that it leaves enough room for their god. But for some reason, I don't think that CMI will continue this series.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ReynoldJuly 26, 2009 at 11:38 AM

    Thus, you are left to take the, sadly, typical atheist tact of arguments for embarrassment and arguments from ridicule.
     
    And Mariano takes the tact of ad-hominem.

    Surprise.

    Hey, why not read some of what the actual people interviewed have to say about that movie?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)