ROTTEN TOMATOES: "Super Size" Guy to Take on "Science" Comments

"Super Size" Guy to Take on "Science"

by Scott Weinberg | December 20, 2005

Summary

Morgan Spurlock, director of the hit documentary "Super Size Me," will soon turn his cameras towards a documentary adaptation of Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science," which is quite the fascinating book, if I do opine myself. Back to Article

(1-52 of 52 posts) | Reply

sokiveta.com writes:
on Dec 20 2005 05:23 AM

[b]Bah[/b]
It's silly to throw all Republicans in one boat and say that they all feel a certain way.

And everyone in politics spins -- I mean, both Democrats and Republicans try to be persuasive by offering "their side" of the story, or opinion on a policy, or whatever. It's all about how the public "views" something, because, let's be honest, the majority of the American public can't possibly form an educated opinion about such complex matters as foreign policy, or economic policy. It’s like judging a 1,000-page book by only reading a single paragraph that was summarized and provided by the media.

On NPR a while ago they were talking about how the approval rating of the Republican leadership was very low, but one of the experts on the panel pointed out that the approval rating of the Democratic leadership is just as low, only no one talks about that because they're not in the majority. And the one who makes the decisions, the guy on top, is always an easy target for criticism.

(Reply to this)

puablo writes:
on Dec 20 2005 06:00 AM

[b]Yeah but...[/b]
While there's always going to be extremes on any side, there are always moderates too that don't fit the bill. The name of the book is just about people, who happen to be Republican, and their (real or perceived) "war on science". So you have to take it with a grain of salt and of course it doesn't mean "everybody who is a Republican hates science". So don't worry about it.

Meanwhile, I'll be interested in seeing this. It will be fun to laugh at the extremists who actually are ignoring science!

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on Dec 20 2005 07:34 AM

Hmmm, I thougt Spurlock was going to do a movie about public school music programs? I really wanted to see that.

Ah well, this sounds interesting too, although I suppose i should read the book!

(Reply to this)

Jeliel³ writes:
on Dec 20 2005 07:34 AM

[b]Spurlock is gold[/b]
This will kick some butt. SSM and his 30 days are both works of observational genius. Now he's gonna bitch-slap conservatism around.... I CANNOT WAIT

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Dec 20 2005 08:36 AM

[b]Politics from South Park[/b]
This guy's a schmuck -- Spurlock, that is... Typical sensationalism (never mind the fact that some gal made a documentary where she ate at McDs for 30 days, but limited her intake to 2000 cals and actually lost some weight)...

It's funny when you find the most accurate representations of politics performed by the fourth grade creations of Matt Stone and Trey Parker (Global Warming!!!). As Puablo and sokiveta discussed, this is more a representation of the extreme, not the norm. I would tend to agree that dems tend to be more scientifically balanced (for no other reason than that's what I've been led to believe by the media), but, then again, when 99% of the political system is comprised of lawyers, that's not saying a whole lot.

The thing about this that annoys me is that it focuses on one side and not both (again why South Park rocks -- unmitigated lampooning of all idiots). The veracity of the message (this one's for you Michael Moore) is muddied by the parochial viewpoint.

Anyway, at least the fool won't have to worry about "killing himself" this time around -- unless he stays for 30 days up at high altitude where that hole in the ozone is (one can only hope).

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Dec 20 2005 11:35 AM

[b]More political hacking[/b]
I liked "Supersize Me", but this will be political garbage.

I'm against abortion, but for environmental protections. I'm against sex ed in public schools, but accept evolution. I vote republican, but only because they're a bit closer to my beliefs than democrats. This sort of "documentary" can only widen the gap we all see and feel in America, by skipping over the vast majority of us who don't toe the line like the book claims.

This won't slap down conservatives; they/we don't assess their moral or cultural guilt from anything produced by Spurlock or Hollywood (or George Bush or Pat Robertson, for that matter). Thinking so only reveals how wide that gap already is.

Spurlock is more or less respected and he's definitely a smart guy. It's a shame he's going to turn his talents to nonsense and the worst kind of juvenile hack. Putting poison in a chocolate-coated candy shell might make it appetizing, but it doesn't make it any less stupid to ingest. Spreading lies and mean-spirited misinformation in a well-produced, "fun" and "witty" film doesn't make those lies true.

(Reply to this)

Flim Springfield writes:
on Dec 20 2005 02:12 PM

In reply to this comment (#829120)
"(never mind the fact that some gal made a documentary where she ate at McDs for 30 days, but limited her intake to 2000 cals and actually lost some weight)"

Well, that was kind of the point of Supersize Me. How many people actually watch their calories?

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Dec 20 2005 02:50 PM

In reply to this comment (#829122)
I would say most women and most men when they see their waistlines expanding. Then again, if you can eat yourself to heart-attack inducing cholestorol levels and sue a company, it makes it all worth it.

(Reply to this)

Anino writes:
on Dec 20 2005 08:10 PM

[b]sad[/b]
Sad how lawyers and judges are determining what is or isn's science now. Do you think lawyers were bad at science when they were in high school and decided to be 'men of letters'? Today's Dover school board decision is a good example of lawyers pretending to be scientists. Take the example of intelligent design--the media has pretty much written it off as 'religion in disguise'--yet they ignore the proponents of intelligent design--like Dr Henry Schaeffer--PhD in Molecular Biophysics from Berkely and five time Noble Peace Prize nominee. I'd think he'd be more qualified than some ACLU lawyer when it came to discussing science, wouldn't you?

(Reply to this)

Dunderklumpen writes:
on Dec 20 2005 09:16 PM

""On NPR a while ago they were talking about how the approval rating of the Republican leadership was very low, but one of the experts on the panel pointed out that the approval rating of the Democratic leadership is just as low, only no one talks about that because they're not in the majority. And the one who makes the decisions, the guy on top, is always an easy target for criticism.""

The latest polls have shown that a majority would vote to replace Republican reps with Democratic...

(Reply to this)

Roadhg67 writes:
on Dec 20 2005 09:27 PM

This is point that no one else has made and is the basis for the Republican "war on science". The fact that their base is comprised of rich, white men (for their economic policies of laisse-faire and pro-business stance) and the "morality" bit... what has proven to be (based on polls) the strength of the Republicans is their stance on religious issues, such as abortion and euthanasia, or more recently their hardline stance on fighting terrorism (which has actually prompted a change in Republican ideas, it used to be that they believed in smaller government, when they are now imposing more rules and bureaucracy)...

Anyway, going back to what I originally stated... Republicans fight for control by getting the religious backing, so they fight for religion to maintain that control... its politics.

(Reply to this)

VML writes:
on Dec 20 2005 11:21 PM

I thought he was doing a documentary about art classes.

(Reply to this)

sokiveta.com writes:
on Dec 21 2005 03:19 AM

[b]Michael Moore is a shmuck[/b]
I'm Republican because I'm a small business owner and I am conservative. I'm for euthanasia, but I don't think it should be legal because it's too vulnerable to fraud. I think that anyone who believes in teaching abstinence-only in our schools needs to get in touch with reality, but I firmly believe in sex only after marriage. I believe that women should always have full control of whether or not they GET pregnant, but I'm against abortion because I think it's quite literally murder. I believe that evolution should be taught in our schools, but I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Science will change and improve on its theories, it always has. And it would be stupid to ignore what scientists are discovering, even if you don't agree with their conclusions.

I think parents who worry that their children will stray from their religion because of what they learn in Biology class probably need to spend a little more time at home with them building their testimony and strengthening their faith, than trying to sue their school. At the same time, religion is culture and it's silly to think that we're supposed to pretend it doesn't exist whenever we enter a public building.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 07:32 AM

[b]Whatever[/b]
If this movie takes both sides of the issue, could be interesting. However, if Spurlock goes out intent to 'disprove' Intelligent Design, or prove how stupid Republicans are, it is just propaganda. I hope he doesn't just interview different Phd's for two hours, talking about how dumb religious people are. Because that means some religious person is going to get a whole slew of Phd's, and interview them about how thick-headed the first Phd's are. It will be a vicious cycle, and who are we to believe? Which Phds??

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 01:00 PM

[b]If...[/b]
If it is true you can't disprove Intelligent Design, then you MUST teach it when you teach evolution. To NOT teach it is to pre-suppose that it is wrong, and since we cannot disprove it, we cannot stop teaching it. If there is even the slightest possibility it is correct, we'd want to teach it, right? We wouldn't want to teach our kids the wrong information, just because it has a religious component to it. Imagine, the United States government refusing to teach the correct information, becuase of the separation of Church and State. That would be ridiculous. The Constitution intends to prevent State ordained religion, it isn't there to condemn us to idiocy!!! There is a MASSIVE difference between the State mandating that you worship one god over another, and the state presenting an idea that millions of people believe. This is a non-arguement, and currently the State is doing a VERY bad job of realizing that they're on the wrong side of it.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 02:20 PM

[b]Joke? Not really[/b]
I didn't miss your point, and neither did I twist it. Rather, I intended to introduce my own thread of logic here. Thanks for your concern about whether I can read english, I can.
ID is based on math. It is based on statistical probabilities that any system (in this case, our earth, our galaxy, our universe) can exist. It analyzes factors in those systems (distance from earth to sun, earth to moon, strenght of gravity) and compares it to how those factors have to align in order for life to exist. Then it comes up with a percentage point that each factor can error and still have life, adds all those together, and gets a probability that the entire system can exist. an example would be saying that after analying all that, the universe is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 and no random process can explain such "fine tuning", as it is called. So, ID is not only scientific, it is rooted in science.
Second, saying that Evolution is not a belief isn't correct. It is a belief. Any time you teach something in school, you want to teach all available logical theories. So, yes, if you had a class on Voodo, you would want to teach all aspects and theories revolving around Voodo. To not do so would be intellectually dishonest. I'm not trying to sell something, unless that something is logic and reason. You don't need to teach children that God created the earth in 6 days, but to be educationally honest, you'd want them to know both sides of the issue. I would want my kids to know both sides, and I believe Evolution to be incorrect. If your children don't learn about my ideas (shared by millions, by the way), then they will be worse off for it. It's about how to do education. Teaching about the Bible? Teach all sides. Teaching about psychic powers? Teach all sides. And yes, if you are teaching about how we got here, teach ALL sides. Besides the obviious fact that, as I brought up before, to not teach ID is to assume it is wrong. Serioiusly, if you weren't assuming it to be wrong, you'd be an idiot to not teach it! I don't think you're an idiot, so I must assume you think it is wrong. Well, prove it wrong, and we'll talk about not teaching it. Otherwise, we simply must teach it to be a possibility.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 02:22 PM

[b]P.S.[/b]
Are you honestly suggesting that there are only two groups of people who twist the truth? Please.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Dec 21 2005 02:32 PM

In reply to this comment (#829131)
Wow thats a lot of err something. ID has never had any kind of theory published for scientific review. Not in any major scientific pubs. You can call it a theory all you want but it's only a hypothesis

(Reply to this)

sokiveta.com writes:
on Dec 21 2005 04:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#829133)
Ya but everything is a theory. I mean, any scientist will tell you that they refer to everything as a theory. But Merlin235 is right, for life to be created randomly something that has a one-in-a-trillion chances to happen would have to happen about 300 times in a row. Even biologists would agree with that, but then at the same time, evolution is the best theory they have right now, so they're moving forward with it.

I think when we all get to Heaven both sides will be suprised -- I think scientists will be suprised to meet God, and I think religious people will be suprised by how much science was actually involved in the creation of the Universe.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 06:24 PM

In reply to this comment (#829134)
if something has a one-in-a-trillion chance of happening... then it still happens though right? You don't know how big the universe is and when life does have the right conditions to occur which could be in many, many places - the "life" occuring there doesn't then have to think they're the design of some greater being.

And all this talk about life having a one-in-a-trillion chance of happening is based on what facts exactly? We only have some idea of how life works here on earth let alone the rest of the universe. Working out the probability for stuff like this is a joke.

(Reply to this)

Flim Springfield writes:
on Dec 21 2005 07:02 PM

It doesn't matter how infinitely slim a chance there was for life to form on our planet, because the very fact we're here to talk about it shows it happened. Since we wouldn't exist otherwise, as far as we're concerned the chance was 100%.

(Reply to this)

sokiveta.com writes:
on Dec 22 2005 12:13 AM

jeremyd4, you make a good point -- who did the research? I don't know. In fact, I'm just quoting those numbers from memory and so they're probably wrong too. The thing is I heard this in Biology class (BIO 100 at my local community college), and not some right-wing newsletter.

I think any scientist would agree that there are a lot of gaps in the theory of evolution, but like Film Springfield said, we are here, so life must have happened somehow. As for me, I belive in God, but really my point is just that I think science is worth studying and if people are worried that there are conflicting views, then they should work more on family time and less on politics.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 22 2005 07:03 AM

[b]ID[/b]
I think that God gives us science, so we can figure out more things about Him. Science is an amazing tool, but I think we're using it wrong. For some reason, we are trying to use it to remove Him, but we should be using it to grow closer to Him. Religion doens't hate science, it just thinks we're mis-using it.
In addition, saying that "we're here so the universe must have beat the odds and we evolved" is putting your cart before the horse. That'd be like finding a ball on top of a hill, and saying "well, it goes against all I know, but it must have rolled up here on its own because, well, it's here." ID postulates that the universe is so fine tuned, and the odds it would be here so infinitely small, that no matter how big the universe is it couldn't cover those odds. Oh, and someone asked who did the math on this? His name is Hugh Ross, Phd. He is an astronomer, got his Ph.D from the University of Toronto.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 22 2005 01:20 PM

[b]Curt, Curt, Curt....[/b]
My friend, we seem be be at a crossroads. You feel as though I am trying to 'sell' people on something, and since you start with that judgement you will never accept anything I say as factual in the least, no matter whom I am quoting. You disregard whatever statistics I present, as saying they are 'fuzzy'. While that is a cute sound bite, you're using it to mask the fact that you don't have an open mind, and will never accept what these accredited men have postulated. But even more serious, I think you are missing my point. I'm glad you claim the "scientific" community's support of your thesis. That's great. However, the meat of my position is not me quoting Hugh Ross's factual, mathematical numbers. There are many men and women who have Ph.D. from very credible universities that I could quote all stinkin' day long. And guess what...so do you! To actually do so would be ridiculous. I don't want to waste your time, especially since you disregard them without ever even giving them a chance. The Catholic Church used to do that, and look what it got them with Galileo. Above all else, we want to teach our kids the truth, do we not? You obviously believe a different truth than I do. You try to condemn mine as faith, without realizing that the foundation of your belief is also faith. We are merely trusting our own sources. You have yours, I have mine. Saying, "the vast majority of the scientific community" is not a good argument in the least. People said that when Hubble proposed the universe was expanding. They were wrong. My logic is this: we want to teach truth. We have two theories. I think yours is wrong, you think mine is wrong. We cannot disprove either of them. We cannot prove them to be correct, either. Logically, then, we should teach both to be possibilities. That's it. Pure and simple. You may not like the fact that there are men with degrees from MIT who believe in ID, but there are, and they do exist. Of course, I don't think anyone needs a degree to know that evolution is about the most insane theory ever concocted, we just need to seriously sit down and open our minds. I am not trying to 'sell' this....it sells itself. You, however, seem to want the word of people smarter than you or me. That's ok. But let me ask: how many scientists is it going to take to disagree with your position before you open your mind? 51% of all scientists? 55%? 60%? Will it ever be enough? How about the fact that I'm educated, I read, and I disagree with you and it has nothing to do with my religion? You should seriously ask yourself this, because it is important. You're fond of quoting the scientific community, but they are constantly wrong. Afterall they're only human, and they have their biases as well.
Oh, and if you don't want to teach ID as fact, that's ok. Just make mention in the class that there is about 2 billion people on the planet that disagree with it. (I know what you're thinking: they aren't all religious or/and uneducated....)

(Reply to this)

Roadhg67 writes:
on Dec 22 2005 01:51 PM

In reply to this comment (#829131)
Evolution is based on scientific discovery and has had so much evidence that it has been labeled a theory. A theory, mind you, is an almost certainty. While we cannot fully prove ANYTHING, ever, it is the most reasonable explaination. Second... intelligent design is NOT a science. You say it involves math, and that the probability of life is so low, that it had to be controlled... well, how does that explain all the various life forms? it doesn't. Second, you look at how fast the universe is, the number is so unbelievably large that even the smallest probabilities have a pretty damn good chance of happening somewhere.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 22 2005 02:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#829140)
[b]Interesting[/b]
I understand what theory is, what it means, and what it signifies. You brought up two different items. First, how does it explain various life forms? I don't understand what you're asking. Do you mean how does Creation explain various life forms? If that is it, then obviously the explaination is that God made them. If you're asking how evolution explains various life forms, I don't know. I'd ask you this: How does sexual reporduction 'evolve?'
Secondly, you missed the point on the probablility numbers. The actual number is so small, it CANNOT be explained by the universe, NO MATTER the size. That is what Hugh Ross, Ph.D., has come to realize.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 22 2005 02:44 PM

[b]P.S.[/b]
I assume that by saying evolution has tons of evidence, you're referring to the fossil record, right? Well, evolution isn't about skeletal differences. It's about biological changes. For that, evolution has no evidence. Especially since it hasn't ever been witnesses or reproduced in a lab. If it cannot evolve on a biological level, it can't even begin to change its skeleton. Evolution is an equation, factoring in time and a set of species. Meaning, it needs time, but it is also the ratio of time/how many species are available to evolve. For instance, evolution would be less likely if there was only one ape on the planet. That said, we supposedly evolved from apes or neanderthals many years ago. The question needs to be answered, why now that there are 6 BILLION people on the planet, do we not have more of us evolving right in front of our own eyes?

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 22 2005 03:21 PM

[b]Haha[/b]
Curt, I realize where you're going with that statement, but seriously? Out of everything I wrote, you had to pick on that? Obviously, taken literally my statement was mis-typed. However as a literary device, over-exageration is a quite powerful tool. I had to laugh when I read what you wrote, becuase I believe you were calling ME a salesmen. That was a nice attempt at re-directing the conversation, but I don't feel like debating about how to use literary devices in a debate. I'll try and make sure I write literally as much as possible from here on in. But please, comment on anything else I had to say (as it relates to our discussion...;))

(Reply to this)

Roadhg67 writes:
on Dec 22 2005 04:31 PM

In reply to this comment (#829142)
ok, do you realize how much time it takes for evolution to actually occur? And do you realize how long humans have been in existence? And then also I must pose this question... why then if God created everything, do human fossil records only go back around 160,000 years ago? While the humanoid family goes back 5 million years. Did God create humans later? And why is he not creating them now right before our eyes? The answer is simple... he is NOT creating species because they must evolve over time. We do not see changes because they occur so slowly... but we do see a certain trend going on within the human race at this point, we are getting taller. The average height of humans is actually growing over time... obviously not an evolutionary step, but its certainly something. Why do so many people in India have sickle-cell anemia?? its because a person with sickle-cell cannot contract malaria, which was a disease that completely wiped out many people in that region so many years ago... evolutionary advantage? I think so... suppose another catasrophe were to happen.. if someone had an evolutionary advantage, they would survive and reproduce more offspring than the rest of us... simple as that. Its basic genetic mutations.

(Reply to this)

Roadhg67 writes:
on Dec 22 2005 04:36 PM

[b]Another point...[/b]
Why is it so hard for Christians to believe in evolution?? There is still the dilemma of how life first came into existence... God, is the answer, for them. Why is it that more Christians cannot believe that God created the first instances of live, and then guided evolution? It makes more sense than to fight for creationism or intelligent design. Evolution is not the antithesis to God, it is simply an explanation of the changing world.

And if its the Bible... most Christians do not take then entire Bible literally, even Catholics...

(Reply to this)

Roadhg67 writes:
on Dec 22 2005 05:28 PM

its pick and choose with the Bible... do you think they read sermons about Jehu? the man who slaughtered tons of the Canaanites and then called them all together, denouncing his own religion and claiming acceptance of the Canaan religion... then after gathering them all in a church... women, children, men... and burned the church down. Then God says "you have done all that is in my heart, and you will be rewarded through three generations." and on the fourth generation... God punished his fourth generation decendent for what Jehu did... hypocracy?? I think so...

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Dec 22 2005 08:07 PM

[b]"To fall in love is to create a religion that has a fallible God" -- Borges[/b]
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea." -- Mark Twain

But perhaps the most appropos for this forum:

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." -- Mark Twain

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 23 2005 07:11 AM

[b]Busy[/b]
This forum has indeed been busy overnight. There is too much to address, but I will try. We even have some quotes from some agnostics that were brought up. But don't worry, I am not about to start whipping out MY quotes. Alright, well, let's start then shall we.
Curt, your logic at first appears to be quite flawless, and I am intrigued to learn you are "a former Christian," and I am now interested about your history but that is a something quite other than what we are talking about. Like I said, your logica APPEARS quite flawless, but you're missing the point. You see people trying to spread Christianity, and you see the Church encouraging peope to do so. You interpret this as them trying to "sell" their religion on others. Nice observation, but what you miss is the motivation for spreading the Word. You asked me to question myself, which I did. And the answer is, "yes, it is entirely ok for me to sit back and accept people for who they are." I am very able, and my religion requires me, to not just accept people, but to love them and serve them. Paul never went out and beat people into accepting Christ. He loved them first. Now, my motivation for doing so is love for those people. If I happen to love them, why would I not share with them the greatest thing that has ever happened to the human race? It seems that if I held onto that, I'd actually be a hypocrite, b/c I wouldn't be loving them at all. It's being motivated by love, not a desire to sell my God to your heart. He will make Himself known to you when your heart is ready. What I am doing here is defending my beliefs, not trying to sell you. Now, if I'm able to convince you about Christ in the meantime, then that's great. But honestly, I've never been able to convince people through debate. Why? Because acceptance of Christ is an issue of the heart, not the mind. That isn't to say the mind cannot accept it, but the mind is unable to if the heart is not willing. I think if you view Christians as people who love eachother, rather than people trying to 'sell' their viewpoints to you, you might be more willing to look at the evidence they are talking about. Besides, we are only sharing things with you that first broke OUR heart. I think you'd put it this way: We were first 'sold' on the idea, so we're sharing with you WHY we were sold.' I still don't like the word 'sold', but it'll do here.
Gaps in evolution cannot be explained. It isn't an issue of us not knowing how it would be done....it is an issue of us knowing that it COULDN'T be done. Logically or Scientifically. Someone brought up Sickle-Cell Anemia. Good point, but before we start having this deep conversation, let's identify our terms. There is MICRO-Evolution, and MACRO-evolution. Micro happens all the time. Skin Color, Hair type, Sickle-Cell Enemia, basic adaptations to our surroundings. That isn't proof of Macroevolution, which never happens. That is evolution accross KINDS. Meaning, a human over time turning into an ape. That has never been observed, even though we currently have 6 billion test subjects on the earth now. Micro-evolution, examples above, is not proof of inter-species evolution. No one would say that those people in India are no longer human. And they are still of the same KIND (a Kind is basically limited to those who can mate together and produce offspring. Wolves, Dogs are in the same KIND, b/c they can produce offspring. Wolves and Elephants are not). So, Micro-evolution is observable, but in no way endorses or proves Macro evolution. They are completely different things.
So the question is asked, why don't Christians just accept evolution? Well, we were created in God's image, physically, psysiologically, emotionally, and spiritually. we are nothing like apes, or single cell organisms, and to say that God is is an insult to Him. Christians do not accept that, from a purely religious standpoint, b/c theologically we cannot. It wouldn't make any sense.
Somone also said evolution takes a long time. Like I said earlier, it is a ratio of time/population. Basically, the more people/organisms/lifeforms available to evolve, the greater the rate of evolution regardless of time. If evolution occured while there was 100,000 apes on the planet, then it sure has heck should have happened around 4 A.D., when there were Millions upon Millions on the planet. Evolution is not just an equation of time....it has other factors.

(Reply to this)

gianash writes:
on Dec 23 2005 08:38 AM

[b]quote from the article...[/b]
[i]"There was a time when science was respected by politicians and government officials and when the information obtained through unbiased scientific exploration was used for the better of society," said Spurlock.[/i]

This is rich...."unbiased scientific exploration." This guy needs a lesson in the history and philosophy of science. When and where has there ever been an unbiased (that is, objective) human position on anything? Are we so naive to imagine that science is this untouchable bastion of objective truth???

Don't get me wrong. I love the sciences, and in no way object to scientific exploration. Scientific discovery and innovation is a huge reason why it is so good to live in the 21st c. But to make a statement like the one previously quoted is simply absurd.

(Reply to this)

malaguy writes:
on Dec 23 2005 08:47 AM

[b]curt's right[/b]
i agree with curt. ID is just another way to preach creationism under a different name. and merlin - you're an idiot.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 23 2005 09:12 AM

[b]Addition[/b]
"and merlin - you're an idiot"
Malaguy, thanks for your intellectual addition to the conversation.

(Reply to this)

kubrickfan writes:
on Dec 23 2005 10:17 AM

I didn't like super-size me, it seemed a tad facist. Fast food isn't healthy, duh! I'm glad you're here to tell me these things. What really bothered me about the movie was that the public always has to place the blame on someone else. It's the fast food industries fault that I am fat and unhealthy, uh-huh. They had this one yahoo on there that said that "they're employees are specially trained to convince you to 'super-size' you're meal." I actually started laughing at the ridiculousness of this statement. I have worked in fast food, I never received any training. But for someone who has never worked in fast food, all you have to do is go to one. I'm not trying to be racist or anything, but it is usually a hispanic person taking your order, who does not speak very good english, and they may ask you once, "would you like to supersize that". And all you have to do is say the magic word, NO. That's all there is to it. Sometimes you just have to take responsibility for yourself. I also thought that calling fast food the new tabaco industry was a little extreme. Because tobaco companies chemically enhance their product in order to make people become physically addicted to it, fast food places do not. I do not however blame all of these views on spurlock, because it was mostly other people that were expressing these views. But then again, it was his project, so he must agree with it to a certain extent.

"Mooney argues in "War" that the right-wing approach to scientific research is born of a conservative distaste for environmental, health and safety regulations, as well as evolution theory and legalized abortion."

That statement right there is left-wing propaganda, especially how the word "distaste" is used. I am a republican, yet I believe in evolution, I do care about the enviornment, and heath and safety. I must say that I am torn on the abortion issue. I do believe that people should take resonsibility for their actions, but at the same time I believe that there are certain instances where it can be necessary (such as rape resulting in pregnancy). And while I know this movie is going to be focused on the extremists who do not speak for all republicans, I can pretty much guarantee that that point is not going to be conveyed to the general public in this movie. They are most likely going to generalize republicans in the same way michael moore does, trying to make them all look evil. What's funny is that leftist movies are always viewed as being provocative and entertaining, where as republican movie (at least theatrical) would never even make it through production. That's hollywood though.

(Reply to this)

Roadhg67 writes:
on Dec 23 2005 06:45 PM

then someone please explain to me how we share 98.6% of our genetic code with chimpanzees? and then around 90-something % the same as gorillas and orangutans. That 98.6%, by the way, is a closer relationship than Asian and African elephants.. not quite so different, are we? Even common mice share 85% of the same genetic code... how do you explain all the different classes of animals?

Maybe you should take an anthropology class, man... you would learn a lot about how closely related we are to chimps... they communicate and have emotions that are so human. Even pets like dogs have personalities... how can you say we are so special among them? Why are humans created in God's image? I don't understand what makes us so special? are we not the most destructive force on the planet? we are responsible for the most horrendous things on earth... and we're better than animals?

(Reply to this)

kenporules writes:
on Dec 24 2005 01:15 PM

Looks like lots of fun. I hope a lot of people get pissed.

(Reply to this)

malaguy writes:
on Dec 24 2005 09:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#829151)
[b]any time[/b]
i will gladly contribute my two cents anytime you want. i mean, me calling you an idiot is just as intellectual as any of the horseshit you're spewing out of your mouth.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 25 2005 05:32 AM

[b]Alike[/b]
We are very much like chimps. And our gentic code is also very similar to them. However, we also share 99% of our genetic code with fruit flies, but it has been a while since someone has argued that we're an evolutionary descendant of flies. The problem is that no matter how small the difference, Macro evolution is impossible b/c genetic evolution impossible. No matter how close we are to chimps, we cannot mate with chimps. We cannot produce offspring with chimps, thus we are in a different KIND. And since Macro evolution is impossible (evolution across KINDS) we couldn't have evolved from apes. Besides, as far as thermodynamics is concerned, it is more likely apes de-volved from us, since everything in the universe is descending into chaos as we speak (hopefully you're familiar with thermodynamics). Also, I have taken anthopology,but again you're trying to convince me that skeletal remains proves macro evolution, when in fact macro evolution is impossible on the genetic level, eliminating any possiblility for skeletal proof of macro evolution.
I don't tend to think of myself in terms of 'more important' than anything else. Just, a different purpose. We are created to have a relationship with God. That's our number one function. It's why Christ died for our sins (Merry Christmas everyone, by the way), and it is why I share the Truth with other people. The world was created by God, and given to us to maintain and take care of. Obviously, we shouldn't abuse anything in it b/c we were given the responsibility to care for it. We are all God's creation, but as humans we share a different design with eachother than the rest of nature.

(Reply to this)

Wordsmyth writes:
on Dec 25 2005 08:15 AM

[b]ID is not science, and the judiciary is of the sam[/b]
It's funny how ID/Creationists keep insisting on their lame attempts to replace science (evolution) with religious fundamentalism. Actually, it's not funny: it's pathetic.

Here's the veredict from the Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover trial, as written by Judge John E. Jones. By the way, and before anyone screams "activist liberal judge!", I will note that Judge Jones is a Republican chosen by George W. Bush:

[quote]"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.

Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that
Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined
from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area
School District.
3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the
Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified
statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement.
Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to
the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

s/John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge"[/quote]

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 27 2005 07:25 AM

[b]Last Post[/b]
Hopefully, while it was your last post, you will at least come back to read mine. You bring up a lot of interesting points, and I am truly sorry that your heart is so hardenend now. Whether by people professing Christ while not following Him (such as the Church you mentioned above, which sadly I am familiar with) or by flawed rationale, it seems you are no longer able to see the Truth on your own. That is fine and good, becuase like I said earlier, I have never convinced anyone to love Christ by debate alone. God's Spirit does that, I have nothing to do with it and will never take credit for "selling" someone on Him. It seems in relation to fruit flies I might have been poorly remembering my statistics, and if that is true, I appologize. Or, could it be you're just quoting another Ph.D., different from mine? There in lies the problem. I honestly feel bad for someone who is athiest, because that is someone who must possess ALL knowledge. How else can you honestly say that there is no WAY God could exist? I was not 'sold' on Christ, rather God talked to my heart and I listenend.
You said, "I would fear this movie, too, if I were a Christian" - I do not fear this movie, rather I am excited by it. Many men, much more intelligent than myself, have tried to disprove God, or show God to be a fool's belief. And many of those men are now followers of Christ. I have no disdain for Spurlock, he can make whatever movie he wants. I pray, and if he approaches it honestly as you say he might it is LIKELY, that he will come away from it as someone who fell in love with God. If his disire is to paint individual Christians as flawed, I do not doubt he will succeed. I am a flawed person, and I admit it. more than willingly. Which is why I need Christ. Which is why I love Christ. It isn't something I desire to sell people on, it is something I desire to share. Hopefully, you're heart will not always be cold to God.
Too often you quote some human being, and say because of that person you will not believe in God. You have said that Christian scientists are biased. Yet you cannot see that so are non-Christian scientists. You place way too much faith in your fellow man. And that is your problem. You aren't listening for God, becuase you're too busy listening to PEOPLE.
In closing, the arguement that we cannot teach God in schools is complete nonsense. Of course we can. If we believed it to be correct, we would teach it regardless of whether it involved God. Currently we don't teach it, becuase it is not the accepted belief of 'the majority of scientists.' Which is to say, 'the majority of flawed, biased, humans.' Any time you or I quote humans, we are putting ourselves on a ledge (as I did with the fruit flies). The information is so often wrong. Which is why I believe what God says. My belief is not irrational; no, it is completely RATIONAL. God only calls me to have a defense of my faith, not a PROOF. He wants to be approached by faith, He doesn't want to smack you in the face and say, "Hey Curt, I exist. LOVE me!" Because of that, we will never have the type of proof that a hard-hearted person desires. The sad thing is, we don't possess that type of proof for ANY belief, much less evolution. We share the same quality, you and I: our faith. I just believe in a different God. I should not have to prove 'scientifically' to you God's existence. You should be able to look out side at nature, inside the amazing human heart, body, spirit and recognize that God created all of this. Look up to the sky and be amazed at it's grandness, that was the result of a purposeful creator, not a random, cosmic fart. How did you/we get here? One day, did Nothing not-decide to not create Something out of absolutely Nothing? That makes no sense. Think about it, open your heart, and you WILLl hear God. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. Whoever hears me and lets me in, I will eat with him and him with Me."

(Reply to this)

brave.sir.rob writes:
on Dec 27 2005 12:14 PM

[b]Rational discussion[/b]
I am obliged to express my appreciation to *most* of those you have posted here, in particular Merlin and Curt, for the respectful and rational discussion. Too often religious and political topics are quickly reduced to childish name-calling rather than careful consideration. It's refreshing to see that there are reasonable people out there who are willing to listen to each other and speak intelligently.

Reading these posts has compelled me to read further on the matter. I proudly support ID, myself, particularly after having read Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator." Merlin, I thank you specifically for not behaving in the typical Christian extremist fashion and damning all others to hell but for presenting a level-headed and admittedly personal perspective.

(Reply to this)

FredFlintstone writes:
on Dec 27 2005 05:25 PM

This is a strange discussion with lots of diversional angles. Sorta like spaghetti. Except it might not taste so good. I do not agree that religius people are salesmen just because they want everybody to know the facts about stuff. I mean, like if you dont believe in God, what could you believe in? evolution is the junk science. That darwen dude was smoking crack when he made his theorys, this is well known. And science admits it doesnt know nuthing because it calls evolution a theory which means scientists are not willing to back this. At least christans are intelligent enough to state that intellgent design is a fact instead of a hoax like evolution ape theory stuff. this spurlock dude is a traitor for claiming evolution is for real. we should all boycot his movies. His Mcdonalds movie is proof enough that he has no character cause everyon knows that christ is bigger than ronald mcdonald and would whup on him if he was poisoning little kids and stuff. I know for a undisputed fact that men did not come from apes because we dont even look like them at all. Anyone who ever went to sunday school could tell you that we were created, you dont need darwen for that. my preacher says that only fools would let science convince them that somethng in the bible is not right and that you are a sinner if you think the bible would lie to you. we need to take these people that arent open minded enuogh to believe in god and ban them from posting stuff. I dont want little kids to hear junk like evolution and stuff because they might become devil worshippers.

(Reply to this)

FredFlintstone writes:
on Dec 27 2005 07:56 PM

[b]Certifiable proofness[/b]
I can certifiabally prove that intellignt design is a factuaal science discovery

This ink shows mathematicul proof of this and it cant be disproved

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html

this site shows how potatos cant look like richard nixon by accident and how intellignt design is factuality
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html

even the bbs thinks there is proof of superior beans
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=13077_0_5_0_C

Conservatives know that scientists are threatend if they critisize darwen
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=10715

51% of polled people reject evolution and coporations wont sponsor darwin stuff
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/22/corporate_sponsors_darwin/

this link shows us alternatives to intellignt desgin besides evulotion

http://www.venganza.org/

id has to be true because the wicked pedia seems against it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

if you guys need more links stuff let me know and I will search for them so you can see the factuality of intelligent design. if you still cant figure it out remembr that god works in mystrious ways that you arent suppossed to understand and you can go to sunday school and learn that from some deacons.

(Reply to this)

FredFlintstone writes:
on Dec 28 2005 12:02 PM

[b]god loves everyone except sinners[/b]
Curt ---> You are an atheist dork!

Merl ---> You are weak you gotta stand up and be a strong christan!!

Word ---> judge jones is not right and should not oppress religius rights!

Brave ---> Atheists are all going to hell cause that is a fact

malaguy ---> you cant call christans idiots or you will have to answer to jesus or noah or john the babtist or someone up on high

roadhog ---> Your numbers are fabricated cause we cant be like chimps cause we are mega superior to chimps and monkeys. I never seen a monkey go to 711 and buy stuff or get a job or be a boyscout or anything. I saw a monkey be nasty in a zoo once and poeple dont do stuff like that. comparing genetic numbers is junk science because the devil tricks science dudes into thinking our genes are the same so they will sin and burn in hell. My preacher says so too.

now lets all just get along and love god and be good and stuff and burn all the evulotion books and get bibles for all the little kids so they can be smart too. because god loves everyone except sinners who are going to hell someday.

(Reply to this)

malaguy writes:
on Dec 28 2005 09:19 PM

[b]Freddie boy....[/b]
talking with the diction of a 9 year old illiterate child is not the way to convince people you're right. also, having the logic of a 3 year old makes you that much more credible.

(Reply to this)

FredFlintstone writes:
on Dec 29 2005 06:20 AM

[b]ID IS MATTER OF FACT SUPERIOR TO EVLOTION[/b]
I TALKED TO MY PREACHER LAST NIGHT AFTER WENDESDAY NIGHT SUNDAY SCHOOL AND HE SAID ID IS RIGHT AND EVULOTION IS JUST MONKEYING AROUND WITH THE DEVIL STUFF. SO DONT POST ANY MORE TRYING TO MAKE ME THINK EVULOTION IS OK BECAUSE THATS MEAN AND VIOLATES MY RELIGUS FREEDOM RIGHTS TOO. IM SMARTER THAN THAT AND PREACHER TOLD ME SO TOO. SMART PEOPLE KNOW GOD. PEOPLE WHO DONT KNOW GOD PROBABLY HAVE MENTAL PROBLEMS OR ARE POSSESSD OR JUST NOT SMART LIKE GOD BELIEVER PEOPLE ARE. BAD THING IS THEY ARE BURNING IN HELL FOR THIS AND ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS GET MORE EDUCATED ABOUT GOD AND GET SMARTER.

(Reply to this)

FredFlintstone writes:
on Dec 29 2005 06:30 AM

[b]be loving for god should be your leader[/b]
Malguy i think you are mad because you kow id is right and you are sinnful. My preacher says people like you probaby do evil things like have premartal sex and get speeding tickets and drink alcaholic drinks and stuff. you cant change me because I know god and he is my armor. you must repent and worship id and be babtized then noah and other men up on high might let you in heavan.

(Reply to this)

brave.sir.rob writes:
on Dec 29 2005 05:37 PM

[b]Nevermind what I said earlier[/b]
Wow, Fred, man... way to totally blow what I said about the benefits of making your point with rational discussion. I'll just go ahead and assume you're aware of how ridiculous you sound and you're just saying this as a joke, 'cause... damn.

(Reply to this)

FredFlintstone writes:
on Dec 29 2005 06:43 PM

[b]Incongruous indeed[/b]
Yes, it is a joke. A blasphemous mockery, if you will. For which I apologize to those who might feel injured by my selfish brand of wit.

If you carefully dissect my statements, and hone in on the fiber, I estimate you will discover impressive comparisons to dogmatic statements made by others in this thread attempting to ballyhoo religion and to squelch science. Only my statements were made in a garish fashion demonstrating my supposed intention without varnishing my words with the glistening and righteous splendor of a morally and intellectually superior being. Which I genuinely am not.

This is not entirely my invention. I've had acquaintances throughout my life who actually resemble these comments. Although not typical leaders among their congregation, spiritual peers encouraged the bigoted behavior nonetheless.

Thank you for sensing the joke and noting my absurdity brave sir.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Morgan Spurlock

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links