I'm surprised a thread hasn't been made for this already.


I recently watched this documentary out of sheer curiosity. To be honest, part of me was hoping that it might actually be interesting and insightful. I was genuinely interested in hearing a well presented argument for the "other side" of the evolution in schools debate.

I could not have possibly been more wrong.

Throughout the movie I was in what was basically a state of shock. I found myself wondering why this movie even exists, and how anybody in their right mind, even people who supported intelligent design, could take it seriously.

I know that there are intelligent arguments for the creationist side of the debate, and I've had very interesting discussions with creationist friends before. I got the feeling that even they would find the ignorance in this movie appalling. If anything this movie is just going to give creationists even more of a bad name, the entire thing is non stop propaganda, blatant lies, and ridiculous accusations (such as nonsensically trying to draw a connection between evolution and nazism, I only wish I was joking).

Who the hell decided that these fanatics would make good spokespeople to deliver the creationist argument? I am sincerely baffled.


Discuss.

I'm going to go pirate this movie and watch it for the lulz.

Quote from The Pirate

I'm surprised a thread hasn't been made for this already.


I recently watched this documentary out of sheer curiosity. To be honest, part of me was hoping that it might actually be interesting and insightful. I was genuinely interested in hearing a well presented argument for the "other side" of the evolution in schools debate.

I could not have possibly been more wrong.

Throughout the movie I was in what was basically a state of shock. I found myself wondering why this movie even exists, and how anybody in their right mind, even people who supported intelligent design, could take it seriously.

I know that there are intelligent arguments for the creationist side of the debate, and I've had very interesting discussions with creationist friends before. I got the feeling that even they would find the ignorance in this movie appalling. If anything this movie is just going to give creationists even more of a bad name, the entire thing is non stop propaganda, blatant lies, and ridiculous accusations (such as nonsensically trying to draw a connection between evolution and nazism, I only wish I was joking).

Who the hell decided that these fanatics would make good spokespeople to deliver the creationist argument? I am sincerely baffled.


Discuss.

Apparently just those working on it.

I'm going to watch this as well.

Myself, PM me a link to what you find, eh?

Anyway, I reccomend the episode of NOVA dealing with evolution and intelligent design, and purhaps you may try watching one of the versions of the movie Inherit the Wind, which was about the famous Scopes Monkey Trials that dealt with this subject.

Both are suprisingly insightful. For instance, in the NOVA episode (Entitled "NOVA: Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial") which I'm sure you can find SOMEWHERE on the 'net (I got it from Blockbuster Online), some people look at the different drafts of a book entitled "Of Pandas and People", which is the most popular "intelligent design" Biology textbook for schools.

They show that the first draft used words like "Creator", "Created", and "Creationism". Then, in the second draft, which was written after a trial in Kansas ruled against Creationism being taught in schools, all those mentionings of "Creator" are replaced by "intelligent agent", and "Creationism" replaced by "Intelligent design".

However, due to some odd hole in the laws dealing with this, this wasn't evidence that suggested that intelligent design was just Creationism relabeled.



Here's the kicker though.

Upon reading the book, one person noticed a peculiar typo in the second draft.

It was "Creaintelligent design proponentsists"

Now, look at the beginning and end of that typo. Where everything else in the book said "Intelligent design proponents", this had "crea-" at the beginning and "-ists" at the end.

What other word or phrase has "Crea-" at the beginning and "-sts" at the end?
Creationists.


That was taken as undeniable proof that, at least in that textbook, intelligent design was just a fancy new name for creationism.

In England we teach Evolution and the creation story from every major religion(Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism) and no one complains.
Can someone explain why you guys only teach Evolution?

We believe in separation of church and state. So if you go to a public school there isn't supposed to be any religion involved or taught. If you want to be taught religion either go to church or go to a private school.

Quote from madhatter666

We believe in separation of church and state. So if you go to a public school there isn't supposed to be any religion involved or taught. If you want to be taught religion either go to church or go to a private school.

So that's why you Americans can't tolerate others beliefs.

Don't generalize. There are people in America that are tolerate of others and their beliefs. It's just that the intolerant bastards in our country get the most attention.

Quote from Deathwish

So that's why you Americans can't tolerate others beliefs.

Excuse me? I don't see the correlation between separation of Church and State and toleration of beliefs. The separation of religion from law is there to prevent any one religion from gaining too much power, which, last I checked, was an example of religious tolerance. Since public schools are paid for by the government, teaching religion in them would be religion on the public's dollar, and therefore illegal.

Quote from Ash

I'm going to watch this as well.

Myself, PM me a link to what you find, eh?

Anyway, I reccomend the episode of NOVA dealing with evolution and intelligent design, and purhaps you may try watching one of the versions of the movie Inherit the Wind, which was about the famous Scopes Monkey Trials that dealt with this subject.

Both are suprisingly insightful. For instance, in the NOVA episode (Entitled "NOVA: Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial") which I'm sure you can find SOMEWHERE on the 'net (I got it from Blockbuster Online), some people look at the different drafts of a book entitled "Of Pandas and People", which is the most popular "intelligent design" Biology textbook for schools.

They show that the first draft used words like "Creator", "Created", and "Creationism". Then, in the second draft, which was written after a trial in Kansas ruled against Creationism being taught in schools, all those mentionings of "Creator" are replaced by "intelligent agent", and "Creationism" replaced by "Intelligent design".

However, due to some odd hole in the laws dealing with this, this wasn't evidence that suggested that intelligent design was just Creationism relabeled.



Here's the kicker though.

Upon reading the book, one person noticed a peculiar typo in the second draft.

It was "Creaintelligent design proponentsists"

Now, look at the beginning and end of that typo. Where everything else in the book said "Intelligent design proponents", this had "crea-" at the beginning and "-ists" at the end.

What other word or phrase has "Crea-" at the beginning and "-sts" at the end?
Creationists.


That was taken as undeniable proof that, at least in that textbook, intelligent design was just a fancy new name for creationism.

Pirate said he wanted to watch a movie defending intelligent design, remember?

Quote from Deathwish

So that's why you Americans can't tolerate others beliefs.

Deathwish you silly wanker.

It's like that in Canada too, and I'm sure you wouldn't stereotype Canadians as being intolerant assholes. Don't try and draw a correlation between ignorance and lack of creationist curriculums.

As someone already said, if one wants to learn about religious beliefs they can attend a church, or take a philosophy class. School curriculums are tightly packed enough as it is without having to make room to touch on a whole bunch of religious teachings.

However, lets try to keep this thread mostly about the movie itself. We don't need a millionth generic evolution debate.

Quote from madhatter666

Don't generalize. There are people in America that are tolerate of others and their beliefs. It's just that the intolerant bastards in our country get the most attention.

judging by your name and avatar i thought you were a stupid 11 year old or something, but i wos wronged. youre pretty swell laloalolo.





































anyways, its has "no intelligence required" in the name for a reason.

Quote from The Pirate

It's like that in Canada too, and I'm sure you wouldn't stereotype Canadians as being intolerant assholes.

THOSE ****ING TREE DRINKING CANADIAN ****BAGS AND THEIR ****ING HIGH AND MIGHTY EVOLUTION THEORIES CAN GO ****ING SUCK A BAG OF DICKS

OH, EH, LOOK AT ME EH, IM NOT GOIN' TO CHURCH EVERY SUNDAY B'COS I DON'T BELAVE IN GOD EH, I BELEIEVE IN EVILUTION

****ING CANADIANS

Quote from Jeremy

Pirate said he wanted to watch a movie defending intelligent design, remember?

Meh, I kinds messed up when i was making my point.

The point was to show that the book "Of Pandas and People" wasn't a very good source of pro-intelligent design arguments. I was very tired when I typed it, and so I didn't get my point across very well.

Pirate, it was probably meant to make creationists look dumb.

It was probably actually trying to support evolution by discrediting the other side.

Was there something that gave you the idea this was meant to be defending intelligent design?