Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Scientific American VS. Mark Mathis from Expelled (72 min)

Posted by Midwest Atheist at 1:02 PM

Labels: , ,

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the podcast, I listened to the full version, and found the discourse interesting, and thought it was too bad when your younger questioner had an emotional fit, and destroyed his quesioning abilities and the tenor of the discussion and exchange.
I also thought the last commentary on the 90.9% ACLU origin of apparently the "finding of fact" portion of the Dover decision, as well as the 35% quoted as the portion apparently, of ACLU text submitted in the case, was a loss for the questioners side and a win for the movie's Associate Producer, who was plenty close, and therefore:
1.His point stood entirely, and 2. In fact why "you guys", and especially the gentleman "who covered the trial" DID NOT KNOW, or had never heard about this massive content of ACLU text incorporated into the opinion... and then immediately dismissed it by claiming " I checked it out and that's what everyone really wants when they submit opinion or textwork in a trial"... to:
3. Miss the point entirely - and pretend to have ZERO context or awareness concerning it - which is OBVIOUSLY for someone not pretending ignorance - the ACLU is or has been for some time said to be by those forces supporting ID, to be an athiestic anti-American and communist darwinian doctrine organization hellbent on destroying "tradiontal America"... ETC.
To pretend any sort of point was won at 90.9% of " the facts considered" by the judge - rather than 92% or 92.5% - his orignal claim- of "the decision", or "just 35% of all ACLU sibmissions ( or any flavor or percentage otherwise in case the explanation was unclear - is one heckuva a pathetic rebuttal.
Sometimes just admitting the truth, or conceding a point of understanding would serve much better your position and outside observers interpretation or judgement of your stances.
I have always been a science major, and have always in my political expeditions as well demanded the truth, simple or complex, above all else, and find only when I hear it - does any satisfaction result.
I'm afraid in this case the Associate Producer's "point of the film" was strengthened by the reactionary emotionalism and strenuous claim and denouncements of the younger questioner when his anger and emotionalism got the better of him. I found many, many of his attempts past that point - pathetic, meaningless, one-sided, unscientific, lame, and derisive... and it destroyed the overall "win" I felt he had going prior.
Thanks again, though, for the podcast and I really appreciate the fact that the discussion was apparenly posted unedited or nearly so.

April 18, 2008 at 7:38 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)