Saturday, April 21, 2012

Evolutionists Flop Again—You Won't Believe What This Judge Said

Evolutionists made a movie about the ACLU's 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial which was, to put it kindly, one big lie. You can read more about it here, here and hereInherit the Wind is a powerful propaganda tool for evolutionists and they have no qualms about using it over, and over, and over in spite of the fact that its lies are so blatant. Well the strategy worked. Remember the ACLU's 2005 Dover trial that promoted evolution so successfully? You'll never believe what the judge openly admitted. When asked about his education for the Dover case, Judge John Jones explained that “I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind.”

That is as astonishing.

How could a federal judge be so profoundly naïve? It would be like saying I understand the general theme of lung cancer because I’ve seen a Phillip Morris video. Like a trojan horse, evolution’s anti intellectualism has gone viral. It is now widely accepted and even federal judges take it as normative.

30 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter

    Evolutionists made a movie about the ACLU's 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial


    No CH. United Artists Studios and Stanley Kramer made a movie about the Scopes trial. Can't you ever get your facts straight?

    ...which was, to put it kindly, one big lie.

    Sadly the lie is yours CH. The basics of the trial were presented correctly. The only "lie" you're now screaming about is dialog in the screenplay and movie that was added for artistic purposes.

    If you really want to see a film that's one big lie, take a look at the Creationist produced Expelled!

    When asked about his education for the Dover case, Judge John Jones explained that “I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind.”

    That is as astonishing.


    What about the general theme of the Scopes trial did ITW get wrong?

    How could a federal judge be so profoundly naïve?

    LOL! 6+ years removed from the Kitzmiller v. Dover debacle and the DI's paid stooges are still crying like a little girl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thorton states; 'If you really want to see a film that's one big lie, take a look at the Creationist produced Expelled!'

      EXPELLED - Starring Ben Stein - (Full Movie) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIZAAh_6OXg

      A "peer reviewed" paper was published in 2004, pointing out the obvious impossibilities of evolutionary processes producing such an explosion of complex functional information in the Cambrian explosion. Yet, just for questioning that unguided Darwinian evolution could do as such, the paper brought forth much persecution of the editor who dared allowed the 'heretical' publication of 'doubting the sufficiency of neo-Darwinian evolution' to produce such massive amounts of complex functional information in the Cambrian explosion. The persecution was so severe it caught the attention of a Congressional Investigation Committee.

      Here are websites and a video clip describing that persecution:

      Smithsonian Controversy – Richard Sternberg
      http://www.richardsternberg.org/smithsonian.php

      Get Expelled - Richard Sternberg - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HS03sGrehI

      "Expelled Exposed" Exposed: Your One-Stop Rebuttal to Attacks on the Documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
      http://www.ncseexposed.org/

      Here is an excerpt of that completely inoffensive peer reviewed paper which ruffled so many neo-Darwinian feathers as to get Sternberg censored:

      Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories By: Stephen C. Meyer; Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
      "To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms. And, indeed, in almost all cases, the Cambrian animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna (Miklos 1993, Erwin et al. 1997:132, Steiner & Reitner 2001, Conway Morris 2003b:510, Valentine et al. 2003:519-520). Further, several recent discoveries and analyses suggest that these morphological gaps may not be merely an artifact of incomplete sampling of the fossil record (Foote 1997, Foote et al. 1999, Benton & Ayala 2003, Meyer et al. 2003), suggesting that the fossil record is at least approximately reliable (Conway Morris 2003b:505)."
      http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

      Slaughter of Dissidents - Book
      "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller
      http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405

      Origins - Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk

      Delete
    2. Sadly the lie is yours CH. The basics of the trial were presented correctly.

      No, even the basics were not presented correctly. Try reading next time.

      Delete
    3. Cornelius Hunter

      T: "Sadly the lie is yours CH. The basics of the trial were presented correctly."

      No, even the basics were not presented correctly. Try reading next time.


      What basics of the trial were not presented correctly CH? Did the movie have Scopes win? Did Spenser Tracy have his hair parted on the wrong side?

      Please list these "incorrect basics" for us.

      Prediction: you'll lie and say you already did.

      Delete
    4. There you go again commenting without reading. Here are the links so you can't miss them this time.

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/10/inherit-myth.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/10/inherit-myth-part-ii.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/journalism-should-be-based-on-telling.html

      Delete
    5. Cornelius Hunter

      There you go again commenting without reading. Here are the links so you can't miss them this time.


      I read them the last time. They don't contain any instances of the movie getting the basics wrong. Unless you define 'basics' to mean "should have presented my Creationist myth in a positive light".

      Is that it CH? You going to equivocate over the definition of 'basics' like you do over the definition of 'evolution'? What a coward's way out.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. "Sadly the lie is yours CH. The basics of the trial were presented correctly."

      Here is a website that reviews the major differences between the movie and the trial.
      http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness2.html

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Thank you to jeffblue101 for the link.

      I would just like to add two comments:

      1. Unlike many (most?) online commentators on the Scopes Trial and/or "Inherit the Wind", the contents of my website are based, wherever relevant, on the TRANSCRIPT of the Scopes Trial and/or the published SCRIPT of the play version "Inherit the Wind" and/or the basic MGM film script (which was indeed modified somewhat during shooting).

      2. The information I present regarding "Inherit the Wind" is NOT simply my opinion - I quote the authors' (Lawrence and Lee) own understanding of the degree to which their script accurately represents the actual trial. They say that wasn't their intention, and I have given examples which demonstrate quite clearly that they were telling the truth.

      I can only assume, therefore, that "Thornton" has either not read the trial transcript, or hasn't read the play/film scripts.

      Indeed, I wonder if he realises that neither the play, the film or the TV movies were ever intended as accurate depictions of the Scopes Trial.

      It has been my experience (based on e-mail comments about my site, and the contents of a number of other sites which address this topic) that many Americans still think the film was simply an abbreviated version of the actual trial.

      Delete
  2. Methinks Cornelius doth protest to much.

    Specifically, Cornelius claims he doesn't want creationism in the class room. Yet, 6+ years later, he's still raising objections to the 2005 dover trial, which was attempting to do what? Insert ID in the class room.

    And what was revealed in the 2005 Dover trial? That ID was creationism in disguise.

    So, if Cornelius doesn't want creationism in the classroom, then why is he still wining about Dover?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Traipsing into Evolution - Casey Luskin - C-SPAN video
      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/193145-1

      Traipsing into Evolution is a book-length critique of federal Judge John E. Jones's decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys show how Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design.
      http://www.traipsingintoevolution.com/

      Delete
    2. So, ID should have been allowed to be introduced in the classroom?

      Is that what you're saying?

      Delete
    3. Scott, should known falsehoods in textbooks be taught to children as if they were truth?

      Falsehoods In Textbooks - Ten Icons of Evolution - overview - Dr. Jonathan Wells - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050609

      The "Icons of Evolution" Documentary Part 3 of 6 - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gukde8b3Zxc

      Dr. Wells writes a article defending his criticism against the Ten Icons of Evolution in detail here:

      Inherit the Spin: The NCSE Answers "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution"
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#more

      (Not) Making the Grade: Recent Textbooks & Their Treatment of Evolution (Icons of Evolution update) podcast and paper - October 2011
      http://www.idthefuture.com/2011/10/not_making_the_grade_recent_te.html

      One of the most blatant examples of a known falsehood being taught as proof of evolution is Haeckel's Embryo drawings. Though the drawings have been known to be fraudulent for over 100 years;

      Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk

      Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel's Embryos - January 2011 - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kHPw3LaG8

      Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - The faked drawings compared to actual pictures
      http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Image:Ontogeny2.jpg

      Actual Embryo photos;
      http://www.intelldesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/richardson-embryos1-1024x385.jpg

      There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: - Richardson MK - 1997
      Excerpt: Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel's drawings,
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9278154

      Delete
    4. Born, the question is simple: should have Of Panda's and People been allowed to be introduced into the classroom?

      Yes or No?

      I'm asking because that was one of the issues in question in the 2005 trial.

      This is in contrast to whether or not evolution should be allowed to remain in the classroom, which is what your comments appear to be loosely in reference to.

      So, it would appear that you've yet again responding to some other comment I did not write on this thread. No surprise here.

      Delete
    5. Scott, the question is simple: should children be lied to in the classroom?

      Delete
    6. Born,

      Are you claiming the complaint of the Dover trial was whether evolution should be continued to be taught, rather than whether ID should be introduced in the classroom?

      Is that really your position?

      If so, please be so kind as to point this out in the actually complaint from the trial itself.

      http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/ItelligentDesignPDF.pdf

      Delete
    7. Scott, is it or is it not your position that children should be lied to in the classroom?

      (Not) Making the Grade: Recent Textbooks & Their Treatment of Evolution (Icons of Evolution update) podcast and paper - October 2011
      http://www.idthefuture.com/2011/10/not_making_the_grade_recent_te.html

      Delete
    8. Except, none of that is in the complaint from the Dover trial.

      Are you taking some kind of medication that makes it difficult to stay on topic?

      Or perhaps you've stopped taking medication that would be necessary for you to stay on topic?

      Delete
  3. Oh, and thanks for posting this. Saved me the time of looking up your previous objections to the 2005 verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is a serious topic but can't help it: I looove the picture :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eugen

    This is a serious topic but can't help it: I looove the picture :


    That's the world famous ID research lab. The big chap is Robert "Galapagos Finch" Marks doing more research for his next Bio-Complexity article. Dembski is on the lounge chair in the middle, studying a map of North Carolina and giggling because someone finally offered him a job, any job.

    Sadly, Cornelius Hunter is not in the picture. He remains too afraid to ever get in the pool.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's very sad. I know many evolutionists believe the darwinian myth because pop culture tells them to and they're too afraid to question it, but you would expect a judge presiding over a trial to be above that...but that's not the case with Judge Jones. He should be embarrassed and ashamed for letting his prejudices rule the trial.

    Please, nobody show him the "Bigfoot" episodes of the Six Million Dollar man lest he think a missing link has been found.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. From the entry in Wikipedia on the play Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee:


    Inherit the Wind is a fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial, which resulted in John T. Scopes's conviction for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to a high school science class, contrary to a Tennessee state law that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The fictional characters Matthew Harrison Brady, Henry Drummond, Bertram Cates and E. K. Hornbeck correspond to the historical figures of William Jennings Bryan, Clarence Darrow, Scopes, and H. L. Mencken, respectively. However, the playwrights state in a note at the opening of the play that it is not meant to be an historical account.[2] Their intent was to criticize the then-current state of McCarthyism or anti-Communist investigations of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) and Senator Joseph McCarthy. The authors used the historical Scopes trial as the background for a drama that comments on and explores the threats to intellectual freedom presented by the anti-communist hysteria. In 1996 Lawrence commented in an interview that, "we used the teaching of evolution as a parable, a metaphor for any kind of mind control [...] It's not about science versus religion. It's about the right to think."


    Creationist paranoia about the movie version of the play arises from the (justified) fear that it is powerful propaganda in favor of intellectual freedom and against doctrinaire suppression by religious or political ideologues of any thought that deviates from their preferred dogma.

    You have only to read the words of prominent Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents to know that, if evangelical Christians had their way, all mention of evolution or Darwin would be purged from the high school science curriculum. In that minority of schools where biology is now being taught by Creationist teachers, there is reason to believe that, in effect, it has already happened. And, to judge from what is written here and on other blogs, there are many who applaud that situation rather than condemn it.

    As I have pointed out before, religion drives science from the classroom, and it matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spedding quoting Wikipedia:

      "In 1996 Lawrence commented in an interview that, "we used the teaching of evolution as a parable, a metaphor for any kind of mind control [...] It's not about science versus religion. It's about the right to think."

      Ironically, it is the evolutionists that are against the right of the people to think for themselves. They will not allow any criticism of evolution mentioned in the classroom. Anybody who is so bold as to criticize evolution risks being ostracized as a creationist or worse. McCarthyism rears its ugly head again under the guise of freedom to think. What a crock!

      Evolutionists are the new McCarthyists. What a bunch of jackasses you people are. Your end is coming. Soon.

      ahahahaha...

      Delete
    2. Spedding:

      As I have pointed out before, religion drives science from the classroom, and it matters.

      And yet, you yourself admit that only a minority of schools (most likely a handful of private religious schools, although I doubt that Spedding is speaking the truth) won't mention Darwin or evolution. In other words, the vast majority of schools are forced by law to teach Darwinism as the truth. Indeed, religion drives science but it's the Darwinist chicken feather voodoo religion that is masquerading itself as science.

      ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...

      Delete
    3. Incidentally, since Mr. Spedding thinks the Wikipedia entry is reliable I would just like to point out that it is based on the contents of my own website - albeit certain modifications have been made over the years since it first appeared.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete