Slartibartfas

Isn't it interesting that the modern evolution theory considers variety to be a very important factor of being "the fittest". Single features that are today the best can be tomorrow a disadvantage. That does not mean that it gets eliminated necessarily but that those variations with other features take over the majority. A large variety saves species from an early doom and make them flexible in an ever changing world.

There are not only two categories of genes, those that enable a living being to survive and those that let it die. A very large number belongs to the sort: doesn't matter; currently. Tomorrow it can be already an advantage again.

Many of the parasites of yesterday have also a beneficial aspects that often was not visible at Darwins age. In fact its a very hard to draw any sort of clear line in these regards between categories.


The misconcept of eugenics based on the wrong assumption that a single list of features would be the optimum while the rest should die out. A basic misconception that also runs against what evolution theory tells us today.

Apart from that, evolution tells us nothing about ethic or morality. Science just describes and makes prediction. That leads to the inherent responsability of those who use science to use it according to ethic and moral standards. Many have misused science for immoral and unethical things, but science is not alone in this, even religion which includes a large set of ethic and moral rules has been misused as bad and misused as legitimation of the worst kind of crimes.

Science is just the tool. You can hurt another person with a hammer, or you can build a cupboard with its help. That doesn't make science bad, its just that what those who use it are.

BloodPhart

I don't take Wikipedia as a reliable source. i do plan on watching the movie sometime, but if he says all that BS than i would agree that he is an idiot.

__________________
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."Ronald Reagan

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

Izzibeth

When I said "every review I have read" I was actually not talking about just professional movie critics. People who went to see the screening wrote reviews, TV Guide wrote a review, general movie goers who saw the film wrote reviews.

Every single review I have read from non-fundamentalist viewers has been negative. The only positive reviews I have seen have been from people who, when you read the reviews, you can see have absolutely no knowledge on the subject in the documentary and have swallowed every lie and misleading bit of information presented.

And we're not just talking about content. From what I have heard, the film isn't even done well from a production standpoint.

I will see Expelled when it comes out on DVD and I can rent it from netflix. But I definitely won't spend $10 to go see it in the theatres (is it even still in theatres?)

__________________

Social Pabs

The one thing I disagree with: "A system without rule of law is anarchy" yes, but so are most dictatorships and tyrannies.

__________________
"Don't you love to negotiate?"
-Shatner

When a man gives to charity, he is heaped with praise.
When the people are taxed for welfare, they complain.

He Likes No Wave

Not that i admit these tragedies were in fact done in the name of evolution, i am not qualified to say, but if they were, it was because of people misinterpreting the theory.

Natural selection theorises a process, it is not a call to arms. Evolution, unlike many religions, doesn't mention an end which people should aim for, but rather implies the opposite, the notion that it is never ending (well at least whilst there is still life). People misinterpret natural selection as meaning that only the fittest should be allowed to breed/live, as if this was some biological law that if not upheld, would result in inconceivable tragedy.

People also have this notion that natural selection has stopped. The truth is, we are still operating within the rules of natural selection, despite how artificial our society may seem. Although it is not always the case, i feel that this belief that the process of natural selection has stopped or lulled is contributing to this radicalism.

In reality, the concept of natural selection is exploited to facilitate the desires of radicals. These radicals are motivated by their own survival strategy not evolution. Although we are all acting in accordance to our survival strategies, many believe that natural selection is only being respected if it's overt and "natural", the notion of it not being respected leaving people with a feeling of being owed something. Combined, these two features can cause a person to ignore the social subtleties of our selection and act in a way which we perceive to be radical.

But is that the fault of science?
In short, no. I know everyone is probably thinking that evolution does have responsibility, particularly as defenders of evolution have often argued that religion perpetuates radicalism. I don't think evolution is as liable as religion however, solely due to it's lack of subjectivity in certain aspects. Although their are many varying views of evolution, it is pretty clear in the fact that it does not compel us to act and that their is no objective humanity must reach as a whole. Religion on the other hand, does compel us to act, the manner of which being highly subjective, and does promote itself as providing a resolution for humanity, both of these characteristics perpetuating radicalism. As the misinterpretation of religion is largely due to it's own nature rather than the stupidity of the person, as is the case for evolution, i find it has a far greater liability for it's produced radicals.