Since the introduction of the English Standard Version (Study Bible) online, I have began exploring the thinking of R.C. Sproul. His manner and thinking are a pleasure and as fresh a breath as Dr. Donald Carson. < my personal favourite.
So if he is new to you, he is just as new to me, then let's enjoy Ben Stein and him together.

Here is a sample of Ben Stein’s contribution … Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed

I was watching Expelled and when I heard the segment from this song (Evolution) I had to stop watching and search the Internet for it. Do you have any idea how hard it is to find a song that’s had little exposure, has a one-word title, a nobody artist, and the title of a controversial issue that’s also in the titles of more famous songs?

Evolution by Kevin Lee:

I didn’t crawl out of the ocean. I didn’t come from no monkey.

Science tends to forget; evolution’s just a theory.

They present it in the textbooks and on animal TV

Like it’s fact. But, tell me, were you there twelve million B.C.

.

And if you’re right and there’s no God, I guess we’ll all know before too long

If there’s nothing to believe in after we’re gone.

If you’re right I’ll eat my words and you can disregard this song.

But I’d hate to be in your shoes when you find out that you’re wrong.

.

When did evolution stop? ‘Cause fish still swim in the sea.

And last time that I checked, apes still lived in trees.

They’re not our distant cousins. And I don’t care what you say;

Giraffe’s neck is long because God made it that way.

.

And if you’re right and there’s no God, I guess we’ll all know before too long

If there’s nothing to believe in after we’re gone.

If you’re right I’ll eat my words and you can disregard this song.

But I’d hate to be in your shoes when you find out that you’re wrong.

.

Now it doesn’t take a genius to know there’s more than this.

But I’ll put my faith in the Word of God – not in scientists.

There’s nothing wrong with science. There’s too much good to list.

But you can stop trying to teach my kid to become an atheist.

.

And if you’re right and there’s no God, I guess we’ll all know before too long

If there’s nothing to believe in after we’re gone.

If you’re right I’ll eat my words and you can disregard this song.

But I’d hate to be in your shoes when you find out that you’re wrong.

Yeah, I’d hate to be in your shoes when you find out that you’re wrong.

I also found a YouTube video:

“A filosofia do bem-estar é utilitarismo. A preocupação com o bem-estar leva o homem à burrice e a ontologia da vida como empresa e eficácia. Não há evidências empíricas de que a humanidade sem a fé seria mais feliz. A humanidade é infeliz e, como eu disse antes, não levo a sério filósofos preocupados com o bem-estar na humanidade: afinal o que é isso? Vivemos há algum tempo já numa filosofia do bem-estar: TV a cabo, liberdades sexuais, suposição democrática, antibióticos. Falta ao bem-estar de Dawkins a sutileza de quem pensa o ser humano como animal ferido que é. Como diria Chesterton , não há problema em não se acreditar em Deus; o problema é que se acaba sempre acreditando em alguma besteira, como, por exemplo, no bem-estar da humanidade.” (Luis Felipe Pondé, aqui)

Dawkins acredita que seu livro, “Deus, um delírio” é “libertador”, e quem sabe ele esteja certo, ao menos se estiver falando de certa modalidade de ateus titubeantes e, parafraseando o próprio Dawkins, que estão ainda no armário, pois como dissera o filósofo Luis Felipe Pondé – que por sinal é ateu – “esse livro do Dawkins é uma auto-ajuda para ateus inseguros”.

Deparei-me com esse documentário de Ben Stein (Expelled No Intelligence Allowed – Expulso: não se permite inteligência), e quis logo indicá-lo aqui no Lúdico. Ele é muito divertido, e eu fui logo à parte em que ele entrevista o Richard Dawkins.

Não quero atrapalhar a surpresa, vou deixar que vocês assistam, é a partir dos 4 minutos e meio que começa a entrevista, depois do entrevistado estar devidamente maquilado, embelezado, como é de praxe para aparecer bem na foto, é claro! Contudo, será que isso realmente melhorou a imagem de Dawkins?

“A redução do campo da experiência humana às dimensões manipuláveis pela ciência e pela tecnologia é totalmente incompatível com a estrutura da realidade, onde a existência do infinito, da eternidade e do incognoscível não é, de maneira alguma, uma situação provisória que o “avanço da ciência” possa vir a superar amanhã ou depois, mas um dado positivo permanente, que uma vez suprimido só pode resultar em deformações psicóticas e infantilismos grotescos, como o de tomar a mera esperança de provas científicas futuras como prova atualmente válida e incontestável.

Mas o puerilismo epidêmico dos intelectuais materialistas chega mesmo ao cúmulo no instante em que o dr. Richard Dawkins, rejeitando como bárbaras as doutrinas tradicionais das religiões – e junto com elas, a tradição filosófica inteira de Sócrates a Leibniz – explica a origem da vida como possível intervenção de… deuses astronautas (não perca o patético depoimento dele no filme de Ben Stein, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, v. http://www.expelledthemovie.com).” (Olavo de Carvalho, aqui)

Recap: In part 1 I stated the thesis of the essay was to see if there is any room in Scripture to include Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. First evolution was defined in its strict sense and the consequences of this ideology/worldview were studied in depth–how did it affect Hitler? Stalin? Freud? and et cetera. The point was to assert the dangerous qualities which this theory carries. Next several scientists and thinkers (including Sire in the starting paragraph) say evolution is an empirical fact of science. I asked if there was an alternative. This section deals with what the Bible says about itself and about this crucial event, namely our origins. Let me be clear though, that this in no way is a complete work, it only takes samples from the Bible. This concept applies to the entire essay–it is a mere overlooking of a very deep and intricate discussion.

Now in response to Sire it must be said that evolution, strictly defined, must exclude God. Evolution is based on this fact; it was the purpose of its making—to let man intellectually depart from God. About half of the churches today tell you it is acceptable to believe in Theistic Evolution and most of them say it doesn’t matter. Don’t be fooled, this is not a small or minimal question—the question of evolution is foundational to the way modern science works. If God is to remain outside of the equation, as he has been for a century in modern science, then Christians must attack such an idea with force.

Even great scientists have an issue with excluding God, and seven-hundred scientists (Christian and non-Christian) have stepped up to the plate to side with the Christians against evolution. Consequently, many have lost their job and have lost tenure. This is the statement they have signed on and agree with: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for the Darwinian theory should be encouraged” (A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism). Fifty more scientists go even further in Ashton’s book and state clearly and evidentially why Darwin’s theory should be displaced and replaced with the historical record of God’s six-day creation. This is likely only a small percentage of those who believe in this—the rest are afraid to lose their jobs! And this is is absolutely necessary to understand, because if one ventures to put God in science, one becomes an absolute outcast in modern society.

I recommend this documentary that recounts the hatred towards open-thinking in modern science

In the 1500’s Galileo Galilei dared to oppose the absolutist theory of that day based on the empirical findings of Aristotle. In fact it was a papal decree that stated that the earth was the center of our galaxy, and not the sun. This accords with Dr. T Schirrmacher’s statement, that “contrary to legend, Galileo…was [actually] the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticizing the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree” (Sarfati 53). Being the minority or majority has nothing to do with being right. For the Theory of Evolution to claim itself as the only explanation is outrageous and it goes against the basic teachings of science. I applaud the scientists who will question the authority of Naturalism.

In light of this, what is a Christian to do? Sire argues that as Christians we must try and find a way to harmonize Scripture and science. But I must restate the bold purpose of evolution—to be able to get rid of God from society on intellectual terms by natural means (random chance). Science doesn’t want God! Huxley, an agnostic, stated that he was “at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures…” and he explains that if the record of the “deluge [is] a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of [c]reation the dream of a seer…[then] what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine?” (Ham, The New Answers Book 32). He argues that if evolution is true then these narratives are but “legendary quicksand” it compromises the entire Scripture’s authority (32). Additionally Nobel winner and biologist Monod doesn’t beat around the bush: “Chance alone is at the source of every innovation…Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the root of the stupendous edifice of evolution” (Hanegraaff 41).

When a pastor asked John MacArthur if he thought Genesis 1-3 could be taken non-literally, he answered boldly: “No, I do not…Nothing about the Genesis text itself suggests that the biblical creation is merely symbolic, poetical, allegorical, or mythical…And I don’t believe that a faithful handling of the biblical text, by any acceptable principles of hermeneutics, can possibly reconcile these chapters with the theory of evolution of any of the other allegedly scientific theories about the origin of the universe” (MacArthur 18). This Professor, a renowned Theologian, says it is impossible to reconcile the Genesis story with the Theory of Evolution and so does R.C. Sproul who adamantly warns us: “[I]f chance exists in any size, shape, or form, God cannot exist. The two are mutually exclusive. If chance existed it would destroy God’s sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, he is not God…If chance is, God is not. If God is, chance is not” (Hanegraaff 41-42, emphasis added). This argument should not escape us—it is absolute truth.

It is said that Einstein himself came to this conclusion: “God did not create by chance, but rather that he worked according to planned, mathematical, teleonomic, and therefore—to him—rational guidelines” (MacArthur 78).This must rule out the idea of God having used evolution to accomplish his purposes, as MacArthur states: “Not only is theistic evolution a contradiction in terms—like the phrase ‘flaming snowflakes’—but as we have seen, it is also the cruelest most inefficient system for creation imaginable […] Rather he can create humans in a microsecond” (78-79).

Mind you, he was no Christian--but he was a clear thinker

Here is where the battle gets underway. Here is where two unstoppable forces meet and one must overturn the other: inspired Scripture vs. Naturalism. No Christian, if he is to believe in an omnipotent God and in his infallible Word, can take Naturalism as the way of explaining the world’s origins. So we are left with one alternative: to see if the Word of God can step-up to the plate and stand-up for itself. Do not be surprised by the outcome; it has been the same outcome for the past 3,500 years. The first century Rabbi Gamaliel gave good advice to the people of his day on how to tell if something was made of truth: “If this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You may even find yourself opposing God!” (Acts 5:38b-39, ESV).

First of all it must be made clear that the Bible attests to its own inerrancy and infallibility. No Biblical Christian can question this fact, or else man is without hope and God is a liar and is therefore not God. The Bible speaks only truth. So what does the Bible say about our origins? Genesis 1-11 clearly, in narrative format, explains that God created ex-nihilo (out of nothing) everything there is in the world in its completed form in the span of six, 24-hour days. The narrative then goes on to give a foundation for marriage, an understanding of roles among people and roles in consideration to created things. It also describes where sin originated—man’s Fall, which is the foundation of the Gospel. Then comes the first age of mankind before the flood (an Ice Age may fit in here, by using good hermeneutics) that narrates the slow degeneration of mankind that is stopped (but not ultimately) by the flood of Noah that covered the entire world and killed all living creatures except for those spared in the ark.

The place where the most debate happens is in Genesis 1 where the attempt is to compromise Scripture’s natural reading and to insert the possibility of Naturalism (the Gap Theory, Day-Age-Theory, etc.). The word in question is yom, which is Hebrew for “day.” This word is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament and it always means a literal 24-hour day, and the only exceptions are clearly interpreted otherwise through context. Ultimately though, the greatest authority may be Dr. James Barr, the Hebrew professor at Oxford University. He himself does not believe in the Bible as true history, but has to admit, “There is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of the Genesis 1-11 intended to convey their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience… (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark” (Ham, The New Answers Book 94, emphasis added). Liberal Professor M. Dods, as a literary-critic states emphatically that “[i]f, for example, the word ‘day’ in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless” (94-95).

Part of the Psalms found in the Dead Sea Scrolls

An endless amount of quotations from liberals, skeptics, and theologians alike can be given to attest to these very statements. Truly, if the word “day” is not taken literally, then the foundation of the entire Bible must be put under serious question. Its reliability as a historical document is absolutely mute, unless what it says is true. This would be a direct contradiction to Naturalism, and that is the ultimate fear, because evolution carries an immense authority; it is called the foundation of modern science. But if the Bible is right, the very core of modern science should be absolutely undone.

Luther, who coined the idea sola Scriptura, puts up a good basis for good, Biblical hermeneutics (how to interpret the Bible): “Whoever would study Holy Scripture should be sure to see to it that he stays with the simple words as long as he can and by no means departs from them unless an article of faith compels him to understand them differently. For of this we must remain certain: no clearer speech has been heard on Earth than what God has spoken” (Ham, The New Answers Book 111). This rule should always be applied to our study of the Bible. So what does the rest of the Bible say about creation?

Exodus 20 accounts for the Ten Commandments that God wrote out with his very finger and gave to Moses. The fourth commandment explains the Sabbath: six days should be used to work while the seventh for rest because “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day”(Exodus 20:9-11). As for those who allegorize the first eleven chapters of God’s Word, it makes God a liar (or a deceiver at the least). In Mark 10:6 Jesus backs up the Biblical idea of marriage by stating as fact the narrative in Genesis 1-2, “From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” Paul also attests to the literal, historical six-day creation in I Timothy 2:13-14, using it as grounds for family roles: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” Neither Moses, nor Paul, nor Jesus could be understood correctly unless the creation actually happened the way it said it did.

But many will say, ‘Should one blindly take God’s Word on this old story?’ A question must follow, ‘Should one blindly believe that Christ died for the world’s sins in order to bring it salvation and eternity with God?’ If one believes in the Red Sea Crossing, the account of David and Goliath, and the Resurrection of Jesus, then what hinders that person from believing in God’s literal explanation for the world’s creation? Is God short on words or can he not express himself without hidden deceit?

If it were not for evolution, this would be a non-issue. The theory causes the issue because it causes us to have to choose between the authorities, between God and Science. Put in this light, the answer is simple—God is and always will be right. But no one likes to look stupid, because there is no evidence to prove the creation. There is evidence for the miracle of the resurrection and for the Red Sea crossing, yet none for Biblical creation. Or is there?

Note: Part 3 to be continued in a few days. I welcome any comments or ideas relating to the essay. I hope you enjoyed it!

A few months ago I decided to subscribe to Netflix to get my movie fix.  I do not have cable tv and have not since 2003, so I decided that I could indulge in this luxury for a while.  Many movies have spun their way through my DVD player since then, but when I received Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed last week, I was stepping into new ground.  I had used Netflix to watch movies like Iron Man, Wally, and Fast and Furious, so this was my first foray into the genre of documentary.  It was awesome.

Stein takes on a scientific establishment that has begun to resort to bullying tactics to quiet scientists who explore avenues that differ from the norm, specifically Intelligent Design.  This documentary follows Stein as he interviews about a half-dozen doctors, professors and other intellectuals as they share their stories about being ostracized for their explorations of what they call ID.

So I started thinking…is it possible as a rational human being to come up with a logical explanation for the origin of life in the universe that does not acknowledge the possibility of an Intelligent Designer?  Many people, including much of the establishment, have a hard time separating ID from religion, but it is possible.  Remove any religious concept and to not think that there was a “creator” (in a non-religious context) is nearly impossible.  One of the opponents rationalized that life came from crystals, despite the fact that crystals are carbon and almost nothing else.  The most outspoken ID opponent admitted that he did not know where or how life originated on Earth.  He speculated that it was “seeded” there by advanced beings from another planet.  Hmmmmm….aliens.  Seems so much more logical than an Intelligent Designer and begs the question, from where did these aliens originate?

To date, science with all of its advances and technologies has not been able to unlock the mystery of the origin of life.  Isn’t it totally possible that is because it really isn’t that much of a mystery?  I was discussing this with my friend Tim the other day after we had watched the movie.  I explained to him that I believed in the Big Bang Theory.  I told him that God shouted “BANG!” and there it was.

In all seriousness, I think it is possible that more answers could be reached by religion and science collaborating than them warring (and it does take two sides to war).  The recent release of the movie Angels and Demons has brought more attention to this very topic.  What if there is such as thing as a “God Particle” that He created to get it all started?  Why can’t certain people just agree to disagree and get to work finding an answer collaboratively instead of exercising vindictiveness on opponents.   Because until we can find the “truth” rationality requires the Faith that we were all created by an Intelligent Designer.  Even the foremost opponents can neither disprove nor deny that.

Have a blessed day and a great week.

Jason

The Discovery Institute is the organization that is behind many of the excellent videos on Intelligent Design –  The Privileged Planet, The Mystery of Life, and interviewed in Ben Stein’s,Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Dr. Egnor, has written a succinct and informative open letter to President Obama regarding the man he selected to be the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John Holdren. Dr. Holdren has a decades long backtrail which allows us a very large window into this man’s soul and belief system. As Bible believing Christians it is incumbent upon us to evaluate people on the basis of their ideas in light of the eternal truths of Scripture.

Ideas have consequences and bad ideas for public policy have disastrous consequences for a nation, and in these days, especially for Christians in these nations. At Biblical Perspectives our goal is to encourage people to think about the people, ideas, and policies of the world around us from the divine viewpoint of the Bible.

When you read this open letter, ask yourself how a Bible believing Christian, someone who believes in a personal-infinite, redemptive God, a God who created all things in 7 days less than 10,000 years ago, a God who directly created the human race in his image, can support the ideas, policies, or positions of someone like Dr. Holdren. Further, how can anyone who claims to believe the Bible, support a politician who would appoint such a man to an influential position in our nation.

Here is the open letter by Dr. Egnor.

Dear President Obama,

I note with dismay your appointment of Dr. John Holdren as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Although Dr. Holdren’s experience in academia and administration may be adequate, his publicly expressed views regarding population control disqualify him from holding office.

I will set aside objections to Dr. Holdren’s scientific competence. Despite his strong scientific credentials, he advanced theories in the 1970’s and 1980’s that have become the paradigm of ideologically motivated junk science. He and his collaborators (such as co-author Paul Ehrlich) predicted world-wide famine as a consequence of over-population by the late 20th century, and they advocated radical coercive public policies to avert catastrophe. These predictions were explicit, public, and were published under professional imprimatur. Obviously, the predictions were wrong. Dr.Holdren’s predictions are an exemplar of scientific incompetence.

But it is the spectre of Dr. Holdren’s competence, not his incompetence, that concerns me. In 1977 Dr. Holdren and his colleagues Paul and Anne Ehrlich published the book Ecoscience. In it, Holdren and his co-authors endorse the serious consideration of radical measures to reduce the human population, particularly third world populations, such as India, China and Africa. The measures include:

• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

• Women — particularly women of insufficient means due to poverty, nationality, marital status, or youth — could be forced to abort their children and undergo sterilization.

• Implementation of a system of “involuntary birth control,” in which girls at puberty would be implanted with an infertility device and only could have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

• Undesirable populations could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into drinking water or in food.

• Single mothers and teen mothers who managed to have their children despite measures to prevent fertility should have their babies seized from them and given away to others to raise.

• A transnational “Planetary Regime” and a transnational police force should be assembled to enforce population control.

Although Dr. Holdren recently has asserted that he does not support coercive measures to reduce population, he has continued to champion population control ‘science’ and he includes his book “Ecoscience” prominently on his CV, without disclaimer.

In other words, Dr. Holdren dissembles. He insists, despite the record, that he no longer believes what he ‘didn’t believe’ then. Evidently you accept his denial. As you are, Mr. President, a man of good will, inclined to see the best in people, you may have misunderstood Dr. Holdren’s ideology. It has a history that runs from early 20th century eugenics to the German T4 program to the modern population control movement and eco-fundamentalism. It is a view of man as pestilence. No one who holds that view, or has held that view, or who has publicly endorsed serious consideration of that view, should be in a position of influence in our government.

There is a deep and disturbing irony in your appointment of Dr. Holdren as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The irony, sir, is this: Dr. Holdren endorsed the serious consideration of radical measures — including involuntary sterilization and abortion — to cull mankind. And he was not an equal-opportunity culler. He betrayed a particular animus to children conceived of third world parentage to young mothers of limited means. He asserted that they were a burden that we dare not bear — for the sake of humanity and for the sake of the Earth. He implored us to ensure that these children were never given life.

He meant you.

Sincerely,

Michael Egnor, M.D

http://biblicalperspectives.deanbible.org/?p=546

So I just watched Ben Sten’s documentary: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

First off, great film.  I highly recommend it.  Just as a film it is entertaining.  From cinematography to music – just awesome.  Well done.

Bu the content is phenonmenal as well.  The film follows Stein’s journey through the infamous Evolution v. Creationism debate.  Or, rather, the religion v. science debate.  Or, perhaps most appropriate for the film: Darwinism v. Intelligent Design.  And it turns out to be very interesting.  He interviews many scientists from both sides of the coin, and the thing I think I love the most is that when he’s talking to people arguing for Intelligent Design, he sounds more like a Darwinist.  And when he talks to Darwinists, he sounds like someone who believes in Intelligent Design.  Talk about unbiased.

Contrary to what I was expecting though, the film is not about facts and technicalities of Darwin or the Bible.  Stein points out how in the field of science, something very dangerous is going on.  Anyone who speaks even remotely of Intelligent Design in a good light is immediately dismissed from the academy of science and loses every ounce of dignity among “real” scientists.  My favorite example is a man who had discovered several planets during his career – planets! – and mentioned in the classroom the possibility of Intelligent Design being onto something.  He lost his job at the college he was working for and was unable to gain another at any scientific establishment at all.

There is a wall, Stein argues.  And you have freedom to search for scientific truth and ask whatever questions you can think of as long as you are on the right side of the wall.

Otherwise, you get excommunicated.

This was a different approach than I was used to hearing.  The “conversation” was so fundamental it made talking about teaching evolution in schools almost irrelevant.  The issue is not political correctness.  The issue is simply that science is not actually being science.  It’s drawing lines and saying, “You are not allowed to ask these  certain questions.”  Which is a huge problem, obviously.

Toward the end of the film, Stein also goes down a second road almost.

Stein (a Jew I found out) started exploring Naziism.  I had heard but didn’t really know much about Nazi “philosophy” having ties with Darwinism.  However, Naziism is in fact humans taking Darwin to the next level.  Nazis were essentially trying to speed up natural selection in humans.

Two different people in the film both said that they did not think Hitler to be insane (particularly).  Evil maybe…  But he had made a “rational” decision, which made him sane.  Stein then made an important point: Hitler rationalized his evils in the name of science.  He justified killing innocent people because of Darwin’s teachings.  Now when we see this happening, it is awfully important that we go back and take a closer look at Darwinism.  Now I understand that there was much more to it than just this; but what I am trying to show is that if Hitler’s actions are a potential result of Darwin’s teachings, then there is probably a pretty good chance that we can find some fundamental flaws in Darwin’s teachings.

I will be writing more on this topic soon, but you should really go see this film.  It’s worth it.

Why, yes it was, Sean. In fact, I remember at least one quip about The Naked Time in the review I linked to. And, yes, the possibilities with sex androids are endless. Which is probably why Tasha Yar was so thrilled.

But if you’re going to post a fake documentary clip, I’ll post a fake documentary movie trailer. You see, there was this movie called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein that was supposed to talk about Evolution and Intelligent Design[1], but was actually one big propaganda piece.

Well, I can’t really judge, not having seen it, but it looked like it, from the trailer, and people that have seen it claim it was. There are debunking sites for it and everything.

The trailer I’m going to show you I thought was rather amusing, though, and it’s from Richard Dawkins site. It is called Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed. Richard Dawkins as a sex maniac…

[1] A name I’ve never understood for the theory. Even if everything was created by some omnipotent being, take a quick look around you. Wouldn’t a more appropriate name for the idea be Damn Stupid Design?

Part I: Darwin and the science of “social engineering”

This documentary film bears two central themes: First, as the title suggests, it charges that American professors are being punished for sympathizing openly with Intelligent Design theory (ID), a spruced up version of Creationism. Second, it wants to place some blame upon Darwinism for inspiring ugly historical movements like eugenics and the Holocaust. This critique is likewise placed within the context of an extended pro-ID argument.

This part of my review deals with the second theme.

Ben Stein: Airy suggestibilist

Wrong from the start: Stein’s fatal error

Eugenics is the effort to “fitten up” the human species by breeding the strongest members, while sterilizing or otherwise preventing reproduction by those deemed weaker. The Holocaust, of course, aimed at the same effect by killing off the weaker ones directly. (I refer to these efforts collectively as “social engineering.”)

Stein not at all specific as to why these sins should be laid at Darwin’s door—but more on that later. For now, one obvious problem with any attempt by ID advocates to blame Darwinism for “social engineering” is that the part of Darwinism that (allegedly) licenses these acts is the very part which ID theorists themselves accept.

Proponents of ID, including those interviewed by Stein (e.g. William Dembski), are fond of saying that Darwin’s mistake was misapplication. He started with a sound idea—natural selection—but simply tried to explain too much with it. All ID theorists accept that natural selection explains “microevolution,” or changes within the same species over time. But they deny that it explains the differences between species; that is, they disagree with “macroevolution” whereby one species evolves into a completely different one. It is at this line of speciation that ID folks part ways with Darwin.

Fair enough, let’s assume. But it is not any particular application of natural selection that inspires the “social engineers”—but rather, natural selection plain and simple. If Darwin’s theory, as Expelled contends, contains the “seeds of horror,” then so does the very ID theory the film endorses. I see this inconsistency as nothing less than fatal for the entire project.[1]

What precisely is the claim here?

But let us dig deeper.

Again, Stein never bothers to say just how Darwin is supposed to be connected to Nazism and eugenics. The film throws up a lot of insinuations and “feelings” on the matter, none of which are really explored.

For a few of the documentary’s claims:

* The eugenicists and Nazi architects were “inspired” by natural selection. But so what? Sometimes inspiration is “taken” rather than “given.” Thirty years ago, John Hinckley, Jr. was “inspired by” Jody Foster to shoot President Reagan. Foster was the inspiration, but her influence was completely passive, and completely excusable.

* Many leading Nazis, and almost all eugenicists, “were fanatical Darwinists.” Maybe, but they were mammals and Westerners and a lot of other things, too. Most all of them had noses,  I expect. Correlation is not causality.

* “The Nazis relied on…Darwin.” This is more specific but fares no better. For they also “relied on” bacteriology and neurology. A ton of real science was involved in the torture of and experimentation upon the “unfit.” (Hell, they relied on mundane things like trucks, wool and tinned meats, too.)

Of course, what Stein really means to say is that the Nazis claimed to be relying on Darwin. As such,

* Mein Kampf cites a “correspondence between” Darwinist ideas and Nazi ideas. But even if some ugly movements claimed to be Darwinist, it doesn’t follow that Darwinism is to blame for them. It is not enough that someone claim to be inspired by a belief to perform some horrible act; in order to blame the theory, it must be shown that it has not been misinterpreted. It must be shown that the perpetrators were correct to draw the inference.

* Darwinism is “a necessary condition” for the rise of Nazism (though not a sufficient one). This is more specific yet. But just as correlation is not causality, causality is not culpability. Perfectly benign entities such as oxygen, gravity, the nation-state, British and American citizens, and Jews, are “necessary conditions” for Nazism as we knew it. Of course, that doesn’t make those things bad. Hitler’s grandmother could have been a lovely human being, but she was a “necessary condition” for Hitler(ism).

* * *

So nothing like an argument is to be found above. The film leaves it unclear what the “engineers” thought was Darwinist about what they were doing, and what was in fact Darwinist about it. (This is compounded by the fact that when actual “social engineers” speak for themselves, they aren’t much clearer.) But perhaps we can stitch something together.

Helping Stein along

The breeding of human beings was an attempt to make humans more “fit” by purifying the gene pool of disease, deformity, stupidity, and so forth, on the assumption, of course, that these traits have a genetic basis.

If you look for “Darwiny” elements in this, I suppose you can find them. You could say that selective breeding of any kind is a “mimicking” of the natural selective processes Darwin codified. And granted, Darwin drew an analogy between natural selection and animal husbandry, to help readers understand the former on the basis of something with which they were already familiar. I suppose with some leap of the imagination you could read into this an analogy between human natural selection and human “husbandry.” But to suggest—even openly—an analogy between human evolution and human “breeding” is hardly to suggest that humans be bred. It is just to say the two processes are alike in some respect.

Also, why would the “engineers” think they had to artificially produce mechanisms that are already working naturally? If they were true Darwinists, wouldn’t they predict the unfit would simply die out on their own? A strict Darwinism, it would seem, would obviate the need for “engineering” altogether.

Stein hints at an answer: The film rolls a clip from a Nazi propaganda film in which the narrator argues, “We [Germans] have transgressed the law of natural selection in the last decades” by permitting inferior members of the species (ostensibly Jews, the disabled, etc.) to survive and reproduce.

The suggestion is that in “the wild,” these inferior beings would die sooner and reproduce less, and thus not threaten the gene pool significantly. But modern culture has interfered with these “natural” self-correcting processes. Now we coddle and tolerate inferiors. Modern medicine—corrective surgery, wheelchairs—compensates for what nature has denied them. And liberal politics have removed the competitive pressure for resources by universalizing access to health care, education, suffrage, etc. This means we will cease to evolve (and possibly “devolve”) unless we act the role of nature and remove these genes ourselves.

“Social engineering” doesn’t follow from Darwinism

I guess this is the link Stein wants to draw. But there is nothing authentically Darwinist about this story. Here are the main problems I see with trying to hang “social engineering” on the theory of natural selection:

(1) Darwinism offers a description of a natural mechanism. Even if that description is false, and natural selection doesn’t exist, it is unclear how any description alone could license specific human behavior. The claim that natural selection operates upon organisms in no way implies that we should operate in “the same” way, or engineer things to bring about “the same” effects that it would. Likewise, the theory that cancer causes mortality does not license us to mimic this effect by killing cancer patients.

Darwinist “fitness” is not a moral category; it is not “good” or “right”—it just is. Getting from “disabled animals naturally die out, enhancing fitness” to “we should kill disabled people to enhance our fitness” requires a moral link that is not found within Darwinism itself, but which must be imposed from the outside.

(2) There is no such concept as “fitness” per se. An organism is fit only in relation to a specific environment. Someone that is fit in one environment might not be fit in another. So it makes no sense to say that “unfit” humans are being artificially kept alive in a modern environment; this can only mean that the modern environment—with wheelchairs, welfare, etc.—has now made them fit. Similarly, a person with 20/200 vision might be unfit in a hunter-gatherer tribal environment, but is no longer so in an environment with eyeglass technology. The new environment simply does not select these persons as unfit.[2]

Once more, anyone wishing to rectify our “transgression of natural selection” is not only wrong but reaching beyond the clear bounds of what is authentically Darwinist.

(3) Even if Darwinism did license killing “the unfit” among us, who says that the targets of the Holocaust and eugenics are “naturally” less fit than anyone else? The social engineers had crazy ideas about what constituted fitness. For example, eugenics was driven by unscientific, “Dickensian” ideas correlating poverty with genetic-based human weakness and moral degeneracy. Likewise, the Nazis had poor theories about “blood purity” which deemed the Jews as less fit than others.

These theories are just false. It is simply not the case that poverty stems from “weak genes,” nor that without modern, liberal German amenities, the Jews would die “naturally” before reproducing. Nor do these views have any part in Darwinism; they had to be grafted on from outside.

(4) Assuming the effects of natural selection could be mimicked artificially, this would endorse social engineering only on the insane assumption that everything which can be done ought to be.

Still, putting aside the moral question, it is unclear that “mimicking” natural selection is even possible. Who knows whether our idea of fitness is the same one “nature” would select for, were its modern constraints removed? Even if they match, it is unclear that the goal of fitness can be achieved in a non-counterproductive way.

For instance, as virtually every evolutionary biologist believes (and Darwin seems to), empathy and altruism are themselves evolutionary adaptations. They have a useful social function, on which the reproductive success of the group depends. Mimicking natural selection would require abandoning these behaviors, risking our becoming less fit in the longer term. Trying for group fitness is probably a contradiction in terms.

Conclusion

Any attempt to link Darwin to the horrors of social engineering has to overlook that he explicitly and unambiguously argued against the practice himself. In The Descent of Man, Darwin strenuously condemns this on purely moral grounds. (The quote, with emphasis, and the analysis which follows, comes from this article in Scientific American.)

Darwin writes:

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”

As SA points out, Expelled shadily quotes the passage immediately preceding this one in Descent, alleging its support for social engineering. They ignore the one which contradicts that interpretation entirely—though Stein and the producers had to know of its existence.

[Please stay tuned for parts 2 and 3 of my review.]

Notes

[1] The most Expelled could contend is that both Darwin himself and the “social engineers” misapplied Darwin. Still, this lets Darwin off the hook for anything more than, again, the technical “paper error” of over-explanation. The moral error falls squarely on the heads of the social engineers.

[2] Behind the social engineering theory is an untenable (and un-Darwinian) nature-versus-culture dichotomy. The reason is makes no sense to say we blocked the action of “nature” is because “we” are as much a part of nature ourselves. Indeed, our action changes the environment, and thus the direction of selective pressures on ourselves, but this hardly makes it “unnatural.” All organisms do this very thing. We could change our behavior, and thus the direction of selection, but this wouldn’t be a return to behaving “naturally.” It would just be a different “natural” behavior than the old “natural” one.

Have you seen the documentary

EXPELLED: No intelligence allowed?  

Regardless of your position on the INTELLIGENT

DESIGN discussion, this is a film worth your time.  Ben Stein

exposes the escalating momentum across the United States of

America (he shows that other countries are not on this same page)

to disenfranchise a segment of the “learned community”; people

who entertain the possibility that Charles Darwin is not the

beginning AND the end to the Origin of the Species. 

NOTE: I spelled species with an S. For those of you not familiar with the party line, Charles Darwin is becoming the end-all to how ALL life began, not just human kind. 

Screw you, tens of billions of humans (no aliens allowed) who believe that some other school of thought could possibly have any form of verifiable credence. (The other school of thought that is, which includes intelligent design). It is accepted that aliens from outer space could have played a part in the creation of life on earth but “a god”, heaven (pun intentional) forbid. To the dungeon you go.

Kudos to brother Stein who had the resources (and the b*#ls) to say, “the emperor is naked” (and to you who do not understand the reference, Google® THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES). My brutha’ from another mutha’ hooks it up proper. He points out the similarities in this developing process of exclusion to the implementation of the Nazi ideology that haunts the world to this day. Land of the free? Home of the brave? O.K. and if you believe that can I interest you in buying a townhouse on Atlantis? 

If the encroaching powers-that-be have their way, ideas and concepts currently enjoyed by a great many will be utterly eliminated. Consider this, a world where the following words are erased from the vocabulary and, within one generation, they never even existed:  

god God             heaven hell      good evil       

redemption damnation

Holy unholy           Righteous unrighteous 

Jesus    Allah     Buddha

 soul  sin salvation

I am sure to many this would be a good idea, but stop and think for a minute what these words carry with them – concepts, ideals, values, a moral structure, guided parameters, benchmarks… that you have come to enjoy as part of the legacy of this country you call home. The USA is viewed by the global community by the characteristics embodied in these characteristics.  

For example, you do not recognize that those “ truths” that you hold dear, ingrained in the fabric of this country, came from a Bible, whose Creator/Author protected because they were His “truths”.  The phrase

“endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights…” 

was not referring to an alien entity from a far away planet or galaxy. 

You will be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as they say, if you sit idly by and allow this movement to continue to escalate. You cannot have the blessings without the Blessor. As you systematically erode the foundation on which you stand, you will wake up one day in a science fiction movie. There are many scenarios to choose from but they all began from a similar source. 

The point is that once you start using that eraser you clear the whole file. Pulling at that one little thread eventually unravels the whole garment. Considering the possibility of Intelligent Design (whatever that may mean, as they are still out on that one) is part of a process of sound academic rigor. To not allow the possibility to be considered allows the opposite to take effect and to be in force (and you can guess what that means).

EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED challenges the encroaching mindset that retards rigorous intellectual pursuit. Cowardly (yes I said it) mundane minds, afraid of a balanced free exchange of ideas of all kinds, have introduced horrific behaviors into American society, reminisce of …(you fill in the blank-history has a plethora of examples to choose from). However in the past there were always counter measures available,  to choose from an alternative value system, based in a morality, founded in a theology. You now stand to destroy that alternative value system.

 A smallsegment of the population has now determined that theology, as a concept, can no longer exist. They say that the origin of all life must now be crystallized in a single postulate (not even a proven theory) that is open to a myriad of interpretations. An environment of intellectual chaos is developing into the choice of the day, leaving one to question the necessity of education and the goals attached to it.

 If intellectual pursuit is bordered on all sides by a wall designed by …(again, you fill in the blanks ), then what is the point of school? Close down the schools and let each man develop according to the evolutionary cycle proposed by Mr. Darwin. Man will be what man will be. 

Leaving out any theological or any spiritual ramifications, to discuss the growth of human-kind, devoid of rigorous intellectual pursuit, is like eating a cardboard box covered in ketchup and calling it pizza. However, if you never ate real pizza how would you know the difference. Hmm…

 EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED should be required viewing in all schools: Grammar school, middle school, junior high school, high school, college (jr. and sr.), graduate school, technical school, wherever there are students trying to learn something. They need a mental tune-up before the film is outlawed, along with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Torah, the Bible, the Quran…

    http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php 

Sylvia Smith interviewed Congressman Mark Souder for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette in which Souder states his “personal highlight of the year.”  The highlight is none other than being in Ben Stein’s anti-evolution propaganda movie, “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.”

You appeared on the big screen this year. What was that experience like?
The biggest single moment was (that) the movie “Expelled” came out on intelligent design. (The documentary about intelligent design – also called creationism – hosted by Ben Stein describes how some educational professionals have been blacklisted from universities and journals because they disagree with the theory of evolution.)

Rep. Souder just admitted that intelligent design is creationism.  The Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard concluded creation science is religion and not science! Intelligent design is the latest failed evolution of trying to get religion into the science classroom starting with outright religion, creation science, intelligent design; and now it is academic freedom.  Intelligent Design was shown to be religion in Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2004.  The Discovery Institute which is the Seattle based ID think-tank tries not to mention who this mysterious intelligent “agent” designer is to avoid entanglement with the First Amendment.  Ben Stein walks all over that premise that ID isn’t really religion in “Expelled.”

Rep. Souder doesn’t say anything about the movie’s deceitful logical fallacy in which the movie attempted to blame evolutionary science for the Holocaust. I watched the movie “Valkyrie” starring Tom Cruise last night in which the opening contained the written oath swearing under God one’s support of Hitler. The people committing those horrible killings were mostly religious.  There is a big difference between artificial selection which was around long before the theory of natural selection.  Note, I am not saying religion caused the Holocaust.  Religion was the original source of the division and the extension of Martin Luther’s anti-Semitic zeitgeist; moreover, there was extreme hyperinflation, unemployment, WWI repercussions, shame due to false propaganda, extreme nationalism, rapid industrialization, anti-communism, secret police, and many more variables to make the times uncertain.  Religious and scientific institutions are used in these types of totalitarian movements and are manipulated.  In fact, the Anti-defamation League released a statement against Expelled’s premise.  Moreover, it is a non sequitur to say: if evolutionary theory caused the Holocaust (which it didn’t),  it disproves the authenticity of natural selection and common ancestry of all life.  Ben Stein and/or his producers blatantly quote-mined Darwin, not unlike the negative politics Joseph Goebbels used.

How did your role come about?
Ben Stein’s producer contacted our office about being in a movie off of the subcommittee report we had done on a researcher we believed had been persecuted and pushed around at the Smithsonian Institution because of his views on intelligent design.
He lost his office. He lost his keys. He lost his sponsorship. We were able, over a period of years, to get the e-mails behind this. This was a three-year fight.

First of all, Richard Sternberg was not a paid employee of the Smithsonian and he purposefully abused the scientific peer review process .  He waited until he was leaving the position of editor to release a pro-ID paper by the Discovery Institute’s own Stephen C. Meyer.  The paper was later unpublished and one may see why it wasn’t actual science here.
The lost keys and office are much to do about nothing, as it was part of a pre-planned event at the Smithsonian for bureaucratic reasons in which many people switched keys and offices including Sternberg.  For more on Souder, Sternberg, and the others involved go here and here.  Worst of all, most of this information is in the appendix of Souder’s own report!!!  Souder should know better and is most likely playing politics, as you will soon see.  See NCSE’s Expelled Exposed to see the complete story on all the manufactured “expelled-IDers.”

Was it the highlight of your year?
I personally believe that there is no issue more important to our society than intelligent design. I believe that if there wasn’t a purpose in designing you – regardless of who you view the designer as being – then, from my perspective, you can’t be fallen from that design. If you can’t be fallen from that design, there’s no point to evangelism.

Do you see Rep. Souder squirm on “who” the designer is?  Here Souder admits his religious biases.  His personal beliefs should be private and not be involved in science or politics.  It is a simple as that.  Souder needs to represent people of all faiths and those of no faith in his district.  This is extremely disturbing.  If he had his way, he would help turn America into a theocracy.

As an evangelical Christian, I believe the premise of a fall being at the core of reforming lives. I believe the concept of grace and forgiveness comes from having fallen from something.

Again, Mark Souder’s religious beliefs are off limits due to the “no religious test” in Article 6 of the constitution.  However, I am waiting to see if a non-religious person can take his place some day.  It seems there is a religious test for office.  Grace and forgiveness are not only evangelical ideals. They are ideals for everyone including secularists.  We should all appreciate honesty and full scientific inquiry free from meddling of religiously motivated politicians.  The scientific marketplace of ideas has spoken on intelligent design.  Scientific knowledge has to go through testing, hypothesis, must be falsifiable, peer reviewed, and repeatable with more testing before it gets anywhere near science school text books.  Telling students there is scientific alternative to the evolutionary theory is an outright lie.

Now, how that occurred – whether you believe in the young earth theory, gradual evolution, or whatever – is disputed. Those become religious. But whether there was a fundamental designer who developed a complex DNA molecular structure is critical. Since I view that as the most important thing in the world, yes, being in a movie that advanced that cause was the personal highlight of the year.

Rep. Souder thinks that young earth creation or old earth creationism is up to religious belief.  I somewhat agree.  One is entitled to his or her beliefs; however, one is not entitled to their own scientific facts.  The facts are the earth is close to 4.6 billions years old with roughly 4 billion years of evolution and common descent.  There are many religions that have accepted evolution and made their peace with it and one does not have to be an atheist to appreciate it.  Scientists state openly they don’t know how life was originally started and we may never know.  However,  science is much stronger here then Souder or Stein could even try to understand.  See the evolution of RNA into DNA.  Abiogenesis , the study of how the first life began, is technically not part of The Theory of Evolution by natural selection.  Mountains of evidence have been pouring in for a 150 years from many scientific disciplines.  The theory has never been stronger and a scientific theory is not a hunch, but it is the highest form of scientific knowledge.

Why didn’t you call more attention to being in a movie?
I thought this might be the hottest issue in my (re-election) race and that I would be so attacked, and it would bring out the social conservative base in ways we’d never seen.
From the time 2008 started, we could tell this was going to be a difficult political year. We went through a huge immigration debate. Then you moved to the $4 gas debate. Then the economy’s collapsing.

Mark Souder was counting on a culture war backlash to muster up support. The Republican ticket had the political winds against them;  Souder, therefore, was manufacturing a controversy to be reelected.  This is Machiavellian ugliness that Karl Rove played, and I think Americans are sick of it.   It turns out there was a very effective response to Stein’s propaganda film by NCSE and it was so effective there was no social conservative base backlash.  Souder won without it.  Most likely, the reason was he ran a better campaign against someone with little experience; and more likely this is just a Republican stronghold.  FreeThought Fort Wayne is the only group in Fort Wayne that has said anything about Souder’s involvement in Expelled and we are nobody compared to Souder’s influence.  The movie wasn’t very big either and it received horrible reviews by everyone who is not Rush Limbaugh or has a religious political agenda.  Of course, Souder was at the Sarah Palin rally in Fort Wayne that was all about anti-intellectualism and Souder sure knows his base.  “Expelled” is circulating in church basements as I write.  I am getting very sick of religion in politics.  I am pretty sure that this Jesus fellow who everyone keeps talking about would feel the same.

It is disappointing that Souder didn’t stick with helping the Veteran’s Hospital as the interview started with as his highlight of the year.  I congratulate him and want the best for our veterans, too.  Souder’s priorities are out of whack for bringing up his contribution to the tired culture war as his highlight of 2008,  the year that Republican became a dirty word.

So last night i got this movie from Netflix and even though i fell asleep while i was watching it, i still was inspired to post about it.

It was called, "Expelled: no intelligence allowed," and it was about how people are outcast from the scientific community because they believed in the possibility of intelligient design.  it was ironic, because i’d never heard of such a thing.  i always thought it worked the other way around- that one would be outcast for believeing in evolution, just like Darwin was.

the movie shared the stories of severel college professers who mearly mentioned the possibility that intelligent design created life, in a class or in a paper, and lost their jobs because of it.   let me just get this strait.  i believe God created Adam and eve and they had babies and they had babies and even though it’s a very primitive idea, i happen to think it’s true, and i also happen to think that God’s creation goes just a little bit beyond "intelligence," but that’s just my opinion.

anyway, severel scientists demonstrated, how darwinism is FULL of  holes.  not only can scientists not prove HOW species evolve, they can’t prove what casues the evolution (as in what force is guiding it), they can’t create formulas that show future evolutions, and most importantly no one has come up with an explanation of how life started in the first place (which means Darwin’s book, "Origin of species," does not in fact tell anyone the origin of anyting.  all scientists have "proven" is that mankind has evolved over time "a little."

wow.  big accomplishment.

OK, ok.  now i saw the movie and i can tell you, i think it was done in an unbiast way.  But let me tell you, when there were scientists old as dirt on their saying things like, "Eveolution is a FACT, it’s and undisputed FACT, there is no chance at all that any type of intelligent design is possible…" alongside people who say things like, "We can’t be sure how life started in the first place, we can’t be sure there wasn’t intelligent design…" the first people just sounded like bumbling idiots.  Ha.  one of the scientists believed that people evolved from single cell organisms that grew on the backs of crystals! he wasn’t kidding! the host asked him how the single cell organisms got there in the first place, and the so called scientist said, "I just told you!"

this made me laugh hysterically.  one of the scientists said that theire is no possible way that there could be intelligent design, because it’s so insanely boring that it couldn’t possible exist. HA!! that’s possibly the stupidest thing i ever hear from a person who actually believed what he was saying.

Face it, close minded scientists losers, you might be able to prove that mankind has evolved over time, but you don’t know how life started in the first place, because saying somehting is a fact doesn’t make it a fact, and niether does writing it in a text book.  if you want facts, than i suggest you study something like math.  because the creation of  life is more complicated than just "facts."  it’s based on faith and believing in something bigger than yourself with little or no evidence to support it, which is a concept that has proven to be way over your heads.

 in conclusion, i do in fact believe that humans have changed over time.  i mean, black people in africa developed dark skin so they don’t get sunburned, and eskimos’ eyes look the way they do because it helps to block out the sunlight that refelcts off the snow and ice and blinds them.  But i don’t believe we evolved from a single cell organism, and that’s why i have a bumper sticker on the back of my car that says, "EVOLUTION: fairy tales for adults"

right alongside "Are you follwing Jesus this close?" and "Boycott hell!" and of coarse we can’t forget the infamous "Support the envoronment" ribbon that won’t come off without taking some paint with it.  apperently my religous and political belief’s can be summed up by the bumper stickers on the back of my car.  and btw, i stayed awake during MOST of it.

To really understand this documentary slash movie you have to first understand how Intelligent design came about, after all it should at least in theory be different from the theological understanding of why we are here since such a theological argument would never be considered to be science. The whole point of intelligent design is so it could be included within science, mostly the aim is to get it taught in schools as the counter point to evolution, in other words to lift the creationists into the remit of science along the way acquiring the objective weight of true knowledge. At some point I was happy to concede that perhaps Intelligent Design is pushed out to easily, this was the first point made by Ben Stein, no one should be afraid of discourse on any subject. Freely expressed opinions and views are exactly the things that have allowed secular societies to become better for everyone. Now to be honest, after some thought, I want to claim that Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence allowed is simply a dishonest representation of the truth and I will explain why that should be the conclusion. Please do watch the documentary otherwise this won’t make sense even though the first issue is understood if you already know a little about the dispute. Sadly Ben Stein does not appear, at least from his documentary, to understand the argument at all.

Read the rest of the post here: http://www.rationalunderstanding.co.uk/religion/%e2%80%98expelled-no-intelligence-allowed%e2%80%99-is-completely-correct-there-is-no-intelligence-in-it/

It has amazed and intrigued me at how much bile the mainstream media, science bloggers, and well-known critics have unleashed at the Ben Stein documentery Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Whenever something makes this many of these kinds of people mad, I’m drawn like a fly to poopie to see what all the… stink… is about.  Sadly, like many other theatrical releases, this one went unseen by my wife and myself when it came out.  (Four reasons for this:  One, the nearest theater that was showing it was about an hour’s drive away.  Two, three, and four are the fruit of my loins.)

I added the film to our Netflix queue, and waited eagerly for its release, which came earlier this month.

Three days ago, I noticed that magic little “PLAY” button next to it, which meant that we could watch it online.  And we did.

I’d highly recommend the film on several levels.  First, it’s just a darn entertaining picture.  The editing makes use of some shocking/hilarious stock footage, and Ben Stein’s deadpan delivery simultaneously enthralls and tickles the viewer.  Second, it gives voice to a group of scientists which, though their ideas may or may not be worth exploring, are rarely given the chance to make their case.  They face demonization at every step of the way.

So if you have Netflix, it won’t cost you anything to watch it online, save a couple of hours.  I think you’ll find them to be well-invested.

Here’s a link to the Netflix page. (click)

And here’s about a 7 minute trailer to whet your appetite:

This is a film about freedom.  I think we can all agree on how important that is.

Expelled No Intelligence Allowed DVDRip XviD AC3-DEViSE

nfo
imdb
Samples: #1 , #2 , #3

Download:

http://vip-file.com/download/f454f1655915/devise-enia.cd1.avi.html
http://vip-file.com/download/a89ed7930468/devise-enia.cd2.avi.html
or
http://letitbit.net/download/f454f1285017/devise-enia.cd1.avi.html
http://letitbit.net/download/a89ed7968761/devise-enia.cd2.avi.html
or
http://filebase.to/files/78545/devise-enia.cd2.avi
http://filebase.to/files/78544/devise-enia.cd1.avi
or
http://d01.megashares.com/?d01=a9072f7
http://d01.megashares.com/?d01=bde20b0
or
http://filegu.ru/f/q57PJ1l0/devise-enia.cd1.avi.html
http://filegu.ru/f/k9v5n9S1/devise-enia.cd2.avi.html

By John Piper

On his 89th birthday (August 31) NPR Senior News Analyst, Daniel Schorr, observed that President Bush had “staked out a non-position” on the debate between evolution and intelligent design. Bush had said that “both sides ought to be properly taught in the schools of America.” Then, with manifest scorn, Schorr linked the devastation of Hurricane Katrina with the concept of intelligent design: “[Bush] might well have reflected that, if this was the result of intelligent design, then the designer has something to answer for.”

No, Mr. Schorr, you have something to answer for, not God. God answers to no man. Come, Daniel Schorr, take your place with Job and answer your Maker: “The Lord answered Job [and Daniel Schorr] out of the whirlwind and said: ‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. . . . Who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, and said, “Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed”?’” (Job 38:1-3, 8-11).

Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Shall the pot say to the Potter, “This is an unintelligent way to show your justice and your power? Come, Maker of heaven and earth, sit at my feet-I have lived 89 years and have gotten much wisdom-and I will teach you-the eternal God-how to govern the universe”?

No. Rather let us put our hands on our mouths and weep both for the perishing and for ourselves who will soon follow. Whatever judgment has fallen, it is we who deserve it-all of us. And whatever mercy is mingled with judgment in New Orleans neither we nor they deserve.

God sent Jesus Christ into the world to save sinners. He did not suffer massive shame and pain because Americans are pretty good people. The magnitude of Christ’s suffering is owing to how deeply we deserve Katrina-all of us.

Our guilt in the face of Katrina is not that we can’t see the intelligence in God’s design, but that we can’t see arrogance in our own heart. God will always be guilty of high crimes for those who think they’ve never committed any.

But God commits no crimes when he brings famine, flood, and pestilence on the earth. “Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?” (Amos 3:6). The answer of the prophet is no. God’s own testimony is the same: “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things” (Isaiah 45:7). And if we ask, is there intelligent design in it all, the Bible answers: “You meant evil . . . but God meant it [designed it] for good” (Genesis 50:20).

This will always be ludicrous to those who put the life of man above the glory of God. Until our hearts are broken, not just for the life-destroying misery of human pain, but for the God-insulting rebellion of human sin, we will not see intelligent design in the way God mingles mercy and judgment in this world. But for those who bow before God’s sovereign grace and say, “From him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever,” they are able to affirm, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Romans 11:36, 33). And wisdom is another name for intelligent design.

No, Daniel Schorr, God does not answer to us. We answer to him. And we have only one answer: “Guilty as charged.” Every mouth is stopped and the whole world is accountable before God. There is only one hope to escape the flood of God’s wrath. It is not the levee of human virtue but the high ground called Calvary. All brokenhearted looters and news analysts and pastors are welcome there.

© Desiring God

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: http://www.desiringGod.org
_________________

Psalm 91:4 – He shall cover you with His feathers,
And under His wings you shall take refuge;
His truth shall be your shield and buckler.