Wednesday, April 30, 2008

From Darkness to Light

My friend and nemesis (now there's an oxymoron!) GMPilot, has started a thread at my message board on the topic of the movie "The Golden Compass" which is derived from author Philip Pullman's "The Dark Trilogy" novels.

He also hinted that perhaps I should get away from my "Obama" and "Expelled" rants. heh heh

Anyway, here is his post:


Although I'm quite an omnivorous reader, there are some things I don't read: horror novels (I find Stephen King ultimately boring), "bodice-rippers", westerns (excepting always Zane Grey), and fantasy stories. In science fiction, there's usually plausible-sounding (and often possible) theories behind the universe's science; in fantasy, things just are.

In practice, this means I pass right by the shelves containing Tolkien, Lackey, and Moorcock on my way to Niven, Weber and Ringo.


As a result, I never heard of the His Dark Materials trilogy until last autumn, when I read your rant against it on your blogsite. The release of the movie based on Book 1 of the trilogy was imminent, and the publishers of the books were moving in concert with that. I saw copies of the books bound into a large trade paperback, prominently displayed in a number of places--not all of them bookstores. Normally I'd have passed them by, too, but by then I'd read your screed, so I stopped to look.

The publishers tried to pass the trilogy off as sci-fi, but in most places I saw it in the "fantasy" section--or the "young adult" section, next to the translated manga (Japanese comics). Booksellers know their customers' heads.


I decided to find out more about the movie before I chose to spend $6.50 or whatever on it. I was certain that since it was aimed at the same demographic as "Narnia 1", it would be of little interest to me. I did learn quite a bit more about the film, but as things turned out, I never did see it.

A friend gave me the trilogy as a Christmas gift. By this time I'd heard most of the smack: how "subversive" it was, how "anti-Catholic", that it had a reputation as "the anti-Narnia", and all that. Now that I had the story in my hands, I decided to learn not only the facts, but the truth.

Now, The Golden Compass is in release on DVD. I'll be picking it up in a day or two, and find out if it was worthy of all this hoopla-- especially from you, Christine, and that gentleman whose writing you so lovingly quoted.

I know you've got a lot on your plate, what with slicing pieces off Senator Obama and trumpeting the 'triumph' of Expelled, but if you can take time out for this, I'll try to set you straight.

Hey, there's always Narnia 2 ("Prince Caspian") due this summer to chill out with.



GM also pointed out my previous blog post, Warning: Avoid "Dark Materials" Trilogy.

A few days ago, I noticed that the "Compass" movie was out on DVD. What is particularly disturbing to me (as is mentioned in my previous post about it) is how the author intentionally targeted the movie towards children - encouraging them towards atheism.

I wonder. How many unsuspecting parents picked up that DVD thinking that it might just be an entertaining, harmless movie for their children? Anyone know the rating on it? Is it PG-13?

Here is my reply to GM's post:


It is so weird that you brought up the topic of "horror" novels....and specifically mentioned Stephen King! Yesterday, I was looking out my kitchen window and thought about that fiction horror writer. But let me backtrack a bit.

This happened just after taking our puggle dog for a walk. It was as close as I have ever seen of a perfect day! Warm, sunny, comfortable temperature. Clear, pollution-free blue sky. When I got to the top of the cul-de-sac, I could clearly see all of the homes nestled along the hills, far in the distance. Not a cloud in the sky! A gentle breeze was blowing and the palm trees were rustling. During this walk, I began to imagine that this must have been similar to what it was like in the Garden of Eden. Paradise!


Upon returning home, I looked out the window at all the greenery and the beautiful roses growing on the bushes. I noticed that some of the roses were dying and needed to be cut down.

The thought of how evil and sin spoiled God's original intent for us to live forever in paradise crossed my mind at that point. We weren't originally meant to die. Our souls have been created to live forever. Our bodies would have too - if it were not for evil and sin.

That reminded me of Stephen King and his horror novels. I wondered why a person would want to think up such terrible things and write books about them. I thought that it must be a result of a dark mind.

Anyway, I won't be watching "The Golden Compass" nor reading any of the "Trilogy" novels. Not interested.

To each their own...I guess.

I am looking forward to Narnia 2.



One thing that I can agree about is that Pullman certainly labeled his "Dark Materials" Trilogy accurately!

Check out all of the meaning in that word, "Dark".

These definitions apply quite well:

1. having very little or no light: a dark room.
2. radiating, admitting, or reflecting little light: a dark color.

10. evil; iniquitous; wicked: a dark plot.
11. destitute of knowledge or culture; unenlightened.

dark'ish adj., dark'ly adv., dark'ness n.
These adjectives indicate the absence of light or clarity. Dark, the most widely applicable, can refer to insufficiency of illumination for seeing


Contrast that term with the term "Light."

However, the most important descriptions of the term "Light" are in the Bible, especially when describing Jesus Christ!

John 8:12 - Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

John 9:5 - As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

John 1:9 - The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.

John 1:4 - In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

John 1:5 - The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

John 12:46 -
I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.

2 Corinthians 4:6 - For it is the God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Acts 26:18 -
to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

Revelation 21:23 - And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

Revelation 22:5 - And night shall be no more; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they shall reign for ever and ever.


HT: GMPilot from Talk Wisdom message board.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Obama: Naive or Dumb?

I finally got around to picking up the April, 2008 edition of Whistleblower magazine. One of the reasons why I had not read it sooner was because the title and subject is, "The Secret Life of Barack Obama."

Quite frankly, I already have had enough news and information about that guy to last a lifetime! Besides, I thought that I was very well informed about all of the negative baggage that surrounds him. I have received previous information from Talk Radio (especially Sean Hannity's show), Fox News Channel, WorldNetDaily, and various blogs. Therefore, I didn't think that I could learn anything new about Obama.

I was wrong! (I know...GMPilot, Mike Rucker, and various anti-Talk Wisdom "anonymous" commenters must be so excited that I have admitted being wrong about something!! ;-) )

When I opened the magazine, I skipped through the first few articles because they looked familiar to me. Already heard:

1. Is Obama the Messiah? (Of course not!)
2. NBC Admits Barack Bias. (No kidding!)
3. Swooning Supporters Fainting at Rallies. Fakery or fanaticism? (How about both!!)
4. Obamania: Giving Meaning to Liberal Lives. (Already wrote about that.)

When I turned to page ten, there was an article written by Jane Chastain called, "The Story Behind Obama's Rise to Power - From state legislator to presidential candidate, with a little help from his friends."

I settled in a comfy chair to read it.

There was a photo of Tony Rezko at the top of the page. I had already heard about him and his connection with Obama and the purchase of Barack's home in Chicago. I knew a little about Rezko's shady background and political deals from Hannity's radio show. However, I did not know all of the details that were shared in Chastain's article.

You can read it here, at her blog.

After you read "The Story Behind Obama's Rise to Power," please come back and answer some questions.

1. Do you think that Obama has been naively groomed as a political pawn?

2. Do you think that Obama knew exactly what was happening and he was (is) in on it all along?

3. As Jane concludes her article she writes,
"Obama claims he knew nothing about Rezko’s alleged shady background or political deals but Rezko was well known in Chicago political circles so Obama has to be either the dumbest or most naive person on the planet."

How do you vote?

A. DUMB?
B. NAIVE?
C. BOTH?
D. NEITHER?

4. Jane then writes,
"Either [meaning, just the two choices of dumb or naive] should disqualify him from any consideration for the highest office in our land."


Agree?

Disagree?

Why?

Can't decide?

In case you missed it, here is a link to The "Rev." Wright's Rant at the National Press Club.

Next, read what Obama just said today in response to Radical Wright's latest rant. Perhaps these two recent events will help you while deciding your answers to the previous questions. Please visit Michele Malkin's latest post Obama’s “big press conference” on Wright.

I still have some questions.

So, did Obama step out too far from those who placed him into political power? Did he get to "high and mighty," by trying to distance himself from them? Is he now appearing to be too independent for their political tastes?

Note what "Rev." Wrong said yesterday:

And I said to Barack Obama, last year, "If you get elected, November the 5th, I'm coming after you, because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people." All right? It's about policy, not the American people.


HT: Jane Chastain: Politically Direct

New York Times

World Net Daily

Monday, April 28, 2008

Wright Is A Radical Embarrassment

While making dinner this evening I was cutting up veggies for a shrimp stir fry, turned on the TV and found myself watching Hannity and Colmes. In the latest segment of discussion on the show, I got to thinking about the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright, his appearance and the words he shared at the National Press Club meeting this morning. Other bloggers, like Michele Malkin, have covered what Wright said much more extensively than I have here here at Talk Wisdom.

I truly believe that when all is said and done about this man - the ultimate point of it all seems to be that this man is just plain prideful, arrogant, and hopelessly selfish. Wright is currently reveling in his newfound fame and doesn't give a hoot about how much his continual and awful bathering is hurting Barack Obama's campaign.

I am no fan of Obama. Everyone who reads here knows that. However, what I see in this "pastor" is that he is keeping himself in the limelight for his own self-aggrandisement. This means that he is using his current position as a "former" pastor (albeit current "preacher") for the political expediency of the hard leftists in this country. What's really terrible (IMHO) is the fact that he is doing this in such in a way that unequivocably shows his intent on using God to force and promote his own, sinful and selfish will upon others.

Most genuine, biblically based, Christian pastors, preachers, evangelists, and lay persons who speak, teach, pray, educate, inspire, and encourage others towards repentance for salvation in Jesus Christ do so because they want God to use them to spread the Gospel.

Genuine believers, pastors, preachers and evangelists are known for following Jesus Christ and His will...not their own wills.

They are not into antics like Wrights. Wright is, in fact, using God to promote and elevate "himself ." How sad it is that this fanatical lunatic is using God in such a public way that is downright shameful!!

Wright doesn't even preach the Gospel of Christ. He preaches another 'gospel.' - one that has so many negatives attached to it that it can only be labeled as a heresy du jour type of smorgasbord - filled with hate and ugly lies.

What do you think?

Jesus warned us that "by their fruits ye shall know them."

Mat 7:16
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:20
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

We know what Wright is all about....and he is definitely showing himself to be on the wrong side of the gospel message.

The man needs to repent!

HT: Michele Malkin

*******
Update 4/30/08 @ 10:18 a.m. PT

I thought that this Turning Point message reveals the contrast between what a Godly leader SHOULD (regarding giving all the glory to God and not to self) verses, what "Rev." Wright does (purposely giving glory to himself rather than God.)

Don't Be a Thief

Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck [Herod], because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.
Acts 12:23


Recommended Reading
Acts 14:8-18


In 1997, basketball superstar Michael Jordan had been on four championship teams. But the Chicago Bull's new assistant coach, Frank Hamblen, after twenty-five years in the league, did not have a championship ring. Jordan dedicated himself that year to winning a championship for coach Hamblen. The Bulls won their fifth NBA championship in 1997, and Frank Hamblen got his championship ring.

Michael Jordan chose to deflect glory away from himself, as the NBA's greatest player, toward another person. That's an example of what all human beings are called to do in their relationship with God: Be humble and recognize that God deserves all the glory. Humility is not a matter of self-abasement. Rather, it is a matter of recognizing our place in the grand scheme of things, meaning that God is God and we are not. When we take glory that God is due, we are stealing from Him. And thievery from God is not an enviable place in which to find oneself.

First Corinthians 10:31 says, "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." Be humble. Let God be God. Deflect the glory away from self toward Him.


In commanding us to glorify Him, God is inviting us to enjoy Him.
C. S. Lewis

Read-Thru-the-Bible
1 Chronicles 23:1 - 25:31


HT: Turning Point Ministries

Expelled Reveals Darwinism as an Idol

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is the kind of movie that promotes a lot of thought. I feel as though I could see it several times and get something out of it each and every time. That is what happened yesterday.

I wasn't intending on seeing it again so soon. However, during an errand, I was asked to wait for an hour or come back. I decided to go down the freeway a few exits and see Expelled again.

I arrived about 5 or 10 minutes into the movie. It was the 1:30 matinee and the theatre wasn't completely filled, but I would say that most of the good seats in the stadium-type theater were taken. In fact, I had to choose between going all the way up to the top or sit in the seats at the front - which I don't like to do because they are too close to the screen.

One thing that stood out to me the second time around was the fact that the Dover PA. ruling (against teaching the controversy over Darwinism and/or the Intelligent Design hypothesis) was a court decision that didn't mean much to Mr. Stein. I really liked the way he countered the argument. He mentioned that other court rulings in the past were incorrect (i.e. slavery, abortion), as well, so the Dover PA ruling didn't hold much water in his mind.

This portion of the movie brought back to mind an interview with Phillip E. Johnson that I had read in Decision Magazine back in 2003.

Excerpts:




Q: The Ohio Board of Education recently ruled that public schools in that state can now discuss controversies surrounding the theory of evolution. Why do you think so many leading educators fought to keep such debate out of the classroom?

A: It's a good question. You would think the Darwinists would be glad to teach the controversy as a matter of educational policy. According to public opinion polls, most of the nation has serious doubts about the truth of the evolutionary theory. Why don't the educators want to address those doubts seriously? They are afraid to acknowledge that there are any doubts that matter. Real scientists, they say, believe without any doubt in the theory of evolution. But in Ohio we had petitions signed by dozens of well-credentialed scientists saying that this area of study should be opened up to freedom of thought. Science should not be committed to a dogma—much less a dogma that is in serious trouble with the evidence—but should freely acknowledge areas of doubt and should address them honestly.


Through his books, interviews, and lectures, Phillip E. Johnson has been revealing that the teaching of Darwinism is "the modern-day mantra of science classes - which is little more than a dogma of materialism."

Ben Stein's movie points this out in a dramatic way. Through interviewing scientists on both sides of that "Berlin Wall" (which maintains the total availability of free speech for the Darwinists, but not for the ID hypothesis adherents), Stein reveals what is really going on and what is truly at stake because of it.

Johnson is not a scientist, but as a professor of law who understands the rules of reasoning and who knows a faulty argument when he sees one, has been working tirelessly against the Darwinist propaganda machine that has created an idol out of one man's theory on the origin of life.

Johnson states, "When science becomes an idol, it's always bad science, and that's what we're getting."

I am not a scientist, either. However, like Johnson, I can recognize faulty arguments too. That is why the Intelligent Design movement caught my attention back in 1999. I understood the fact that the courts would never budge to allow discussion of Creation back into the classrooms. The link between the book of Genesis in the Bible prevents this. Therefore, it appears that secular humanists have been successful at erecting a permanent retaining wall against Creation and/or Creation Science. Creationists stay on their side (in churches, Christian schools & universities), Evolution-only adherents get everything else (which includes the public schools, secular universities and colleges, the watchdogs, the media, and in most cases, even the courts.)

But when ID came along, the objections towards the "Creationists" were no longer valid. The Darwinists have been trying to throw them in the same box, but it's not working. Just because someone is a Christian and a scientist doesn't mean that their arguments are not valid. There is concrete evidence in biology and in the fine-tuning of the universe which points towards the need for an intelligent designer. In fact, discussing ID doesn't negate what secular Darwinists may want to think about such a designer.

Just as it was pointed out in the movie, those Darwinists who admit to not knowing the explanation for the origin of the cell have their own biases and opinions about it. What they don't have is evidence for it. Darwinian evolution does not have an explanation for the origin of the cell.

In the movie, one prominent Darwinist claimed that life could have arisen from non-life "on the backs of crystals." Another, Richard Dawkins, who professes to being an avowed atheist and is the author of "The God Delusion," admitted that if we did have any kind of a designer, he/she/it must have been a highly evolved being from another universe.

He's talking about aliens...people!!

Why can that man get a pass on his opinions and speculations whereas those who might want to call the Intelligent Designer "God," get nothing but ridicule, debasement, scorn, and hate-filled spewed venom for a personal belief that is not being specifically discussed in the science classroom anyway?

Let's look at more of Johnson's interview:




We ask, "What is life, anyway? Is it just matter that is changing by natural processes?" No, that's not so at all. The biological cell, for example, the fundamental unit of biology, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity so intricate that it makes a super computer or a spaceship look rather low-tech. It's like a whole city with its own energy transportation, its own fire and police departments, its own hospital—all working together in marvelous harmony. Obviously, there is some intelligence in the cell. You might call it a program that ties all this together and keeps it working for the common good of the organism. The Darwinist theory has no explanation for the origin of this cell. Even the most eminent biologist will admit that to you. So they are stopped right at the beginning. They do claim that you can make some changes in nature by means of random variation or gene mutation and natural selection—the survival of the fittest. And, within limits, that's true. Their claim is not altogether false, but it is true only at a very trivial level. It doesn't explain any significant change in the biological world.


Why can't students debate such thoughts as "there appears to be some intelligence in the cell?"

The movie has several humorous parts in it. There are old time video clips interspersed between the interviews with the scientists. In one of the clips, there is a scene where an old styled western shoot-out happens between two men. The last word, (said in a disparaging tone of voice) of the winning gun slinger whose opponent falls on the ground after he shoots him was, "Creationist."

Comedy was utilized to reveal some truth. "Creationist" is a "dirty word" according to Big Science. So many of the Darwinists in the movie even admitted their own dreadful hostility towards those who don't believe as they obviously do - i.e. in their own atheistic worldview. How did such brutal hatred spawn from Darwinian thinking? Stein's movie answers that question, too. However, the impact of seeing it on screen is much greater than reading it if I typed it out on this blog.

If you haven't seen the movie yet - go see it. I personally think that it might even be a type of enlightenment similar to the one that many people experienced after reading David Kupelian's book, "The Marketing of Evil." Exposure of cultural evils and idols can change one's worldview...drastically.

Johnson answers it in his own way:

They want to substitute another god—an idol—that they can control. An idol is simply a man-made god, a man-controlled god.

Paul uses the example of little figures of birds or beasts. In our day, the idols tend to be theories that come from the human mind. The theory of evolution is the latest fashion in idols. This myth of Darwinian evolution has helped a certain class of people to become wealthy and powerful and to be able to control the whole culture. They are mostly not scientists; they are the rulers of science and culture—the ones who decide how science will be presented to the public through television and elite newspapers. Science is extremely profitable to them. That's why they spend all their efforts and resources making sure everybody believes their particular creation story and no one is allowed to consider another one. It also explains why those of us who challenge that power can expect not just a lot of criticism but downright abuse. (bold mine)



Challenging the Darwinists power.

Spewing out criticism.

Exhibiting downright abuse.

These are all of the trademarks of the Big Science elitists who have heaped such things upon those who do not walk lock-in-step with their dogma.

Stein has done a marvelous job of turning the tables upon them. Dawkins, Myers, and other Darwinists are squawking like hysterical turkeys who sense the chopping block of challenge that would erode their current stronghold of power in science when more people find out about their idol and motives for silencing their opponents.

I see this already happening in the blogs and various articles in newspapers. The Darwinists are screaming about the "harsh treatment" or "how they were tricked into appearing in the movie," or "how their words have been taken out of context" ....yada yada yada!! You see, they have never been held up to such scrutiny by a large portion of the public before.

They don't like any challenge to their power.

They don't like criticism about cherished portions of their idolized theory. Portions of Darwinism are being debunked through the revelation of the irreducible complexity of the cell and the question of "where did this information come from?"

What's their answer to such a question?

'Real scientists don't ask such questions!'

Johnson's interview:




Q: Describe the premise and process of intelligent design.

A: The premise of intelligent design is that the evidence of science, understood impartially, points to the need for an intelligence. This is shown in two particular ways. First, there is the irreducible complexity of living organisms, like the biological cell. This is best explained in the book "Darwin's Black Box" by my friend and colleague, biochemist Michael Behe. He shows the incredible complexity of each cell and the systems that require many complex parts to work. If you're missing one part, you don't get an almost-perfect system; you get no system at all. Any creative process would have to produce everything all at once. The Darwinian says that you produce one thing that has some function, and then you add on another one and another and so on until you get the complete cell. Each step is supposedly superior to the last. But irreducible complexity makes that impossible. That is the first feature.

The second feature of living organisms is that they contain what is known as complex specific information. To explain that, just think of a book like an encyclopedia or a computer program like Windows 98. Computer programs don't write themselves; they need computer engineers. A computer program has a very complex set of instructions. Richard Dawkins, the arch Darwinist promoter and atheist, admits forthrightly that a single cell in your body has more information in it than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. That information is what coordinates the activities of the cell. Now, you know how impossible it would be to produce an encyclopedia by mixing letters at random until they came together in a certain way.

Neither of these things can be explained by the Darwinian theory. They don't even try to explain them; all they do is huff and puff and bluff and say, "You're not allowed to challenge our scientific fact." This dogma is not science at all. None of it has been demonstrated by experiment, which is what would have to happen for it to be truly scientific.


"Expelled" shows how impossible it would be to produce the information that coordinates the activities of the cell randomly (as Darwinian materialism-only suggests) through a cartoon of Richard Dawkins playing a slot machine and getting all of the information in just the right order. His "prize" would be a biological cell. He gets it right at the first machine, but then the host tells him that he must repeat that, in the same exact order, on 249 other machines. It's quite humorous to see Dawkin's frustration in the cartoon....kicking and screaming at the "dumb machines." Speaking of rants, I have heard that Dawkins has written a 3,000 word rant against the movie "Expelled." He really does look very foolish in it. However, it is his own words that he says in the film that make him appear that way!

Foolish is as foolish does! (to slightly change a phrase by Forrest Gump).

Johnson:




Q: At the pinnacle of your arguments against Darwin's theory is the reality that there is a Creator God whom we can know.

A: Yes. Some people don't want to see it because they are afraid it would mean a loss of their power. They want to be their own God. They think that naturalism offers them maximum power and freedom. It doesn't. Romans 1:20 makes that very clear. They turn away because they do not want to honor the true God as God. So they turn to gods of their own making, false gods. That is what idolatry is all about. Idolatry is what our present culture is all about. Sex is an idol and science is an idol. When science becomes an idol, it's always bad science, and that's what we're getting. (bold mine)


Near the end of the movie, Ben Stein does a sit down interview with Richard Dawkins that alone is worth the price of admission. For the sake of those who have not seen the film, I won't quote it here. But Dawkin's answers provide true evidence of what Johnson states in the above question and answer.

Expelled reveals Big Science's idol. It reveals the fact that holding such an idol leads to bad science. It reveals that this is what our students are getting in the public schools, universities, because of watchdog groups that want to stifle free speech; because of liberal elitism in the media; because of liberal judges in the courtrooms; and because of adherence to Darwinian dogma that has erected a Berlin Wall between themselves and those that question their unscientific dogma.

[Phillip E. Johnson interview from the August 2003 issue of "Decision" magazine.]

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Cosmos or Chaos? (final update)

R.C. Sproul interviews Ben Stein about the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

[Note: Please go to Ligonier.org to view it.]

Loved R.C. Sproul's discussion about "cosmos or chaos" during the interview!

The video was recorded in February of 2008. It is from an interview where R.C. Sproul discusses the upcoming [now in theaters as of April 18, 2008] Ben Stein movie named, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

The film is a documentary, hosted and moderated by Ben Stein, that covers the suppression of free thought and free speech in American universities. Such freedom of thought suppression is especially evident when it comes to scientists, journalists, or anyone else who questions the validity of certain portions of Darwinism.

As Ben Stein notes in the movie, just asking certain questions can get a person "in a heap of trouble." Why is that?

Why can't someone ask:



"What is the origin of apparent design in biological organisms and/or other aspects of the natural universe and/or the universe as a whole?"


Evolution attempts to answer the question by appealing to the forces of unguided matter (and/or energy). Intelligent Design appeals to the need for intelligent agency.

George Gaylord Simpson states:



"Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."


How come he can say such a thing but a person who believes that we DO have purpose and the evidence of such purpose is the fact that the ID hypothesis has more explanatory power in accounting for the specified, and sometimes irreducible, complexity of some physical systems, including biological entities and/or the existence of the universe as a whole, rather than the blind forces of unguided matter?

In his movie, Mr. Stein goes on a search to find out answers to several questions that design naysayers don't even want asked, no less answered.

The movie is highly entertaining as it is fact filled and honest. During my Internet searches on it I have found that sites which allow ratings of the film garner either an "A" (for those who want the design questions debated and researched) or an "F" (from the die hard Darwinists who spew their hatred towards anyone who dares not to walk in lock-step with their treasured theory).

What I see happening today is that those who adhere to methodological naturalism (MN)are worried - mostly because Intelligent Design (ID) conflicts with their long-held and cherished theories. I understand. It must be very difficult to let go of such strongholds upon the mind.

But the real question, according to design theorists, is whether their arguments for ID work, not whether ID conflicts with MN.

MN proponents do not want to find out. Period. They are guilty of suppressing the evidence (from universities, peer-reviewed journals, etc.) no matter (pun!) where it may lead.

Why?

Ben Stein reveals the reason. In fact, he nails the exact reason in this film.

If the ID arguments work and they conflict with MN, then one may conclude that MN is not a necessary precondition of natural science and cannot be employed to exclude positions contrary to it!

BINGO!

Can you see the funds being siphoned away from the dinosaur believers in macro-evolution (when that debunked portion of Darwinism is finally placed on the trash heap of history where it belongs) with the result of funding going over to the ID camp?

*Sigh*

Is the bottom line about money?? Must be. That, and saving face. Money and pride. What a secular humanistic combination!!

What else is new...

Information about the film can be obtained at expelledthemovie.com, and about RC Sproul and Ligonier Ministries at ligonier.org

HT: Camp on This [Interview between Stein and Sproul can also be viewed at this link]

*******

Update 4/25/08 @ 8:48 a.m. PT:

A brief video to view! It's also an ad for three DVD's - but this brief message asks some of the same questions that the "Expelled" movie asks.

Unlocking the Mystery of Life

*******

Update 4/27/08 @ 6:30 a.m. PT:

I have been researching the Internet for some of the best articles on the subject of "Expelled." The following Thinking Christian blog post by Tom Gilson (posted back in Dec. 2007) reads almost like a prophecy about the firestorm that has now erupted over this movie!

Expelled, The Movie: "What They're Doing Is Essentially Shelving Their Findings"

There have been a lot of rumors going around that somehow, people were "tricked" into appearing in this film.



ID The Future presents the second installment of a two-part interview with Walt Ruloff, executive producer of the upcoming docudrama Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Today Ruloff explains how interviews were obtained with top Darwinists including Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, and dispels claims that trickery and deception were used. He also provides an overview of the movie’s website, staff, and future projects.


Executive producer Walt Ruloff dispels claims that trickery and deception were used.

And, those misguided people who are claiming that "no one is losing their job because of questioning Darwinism and/or belief in Intelligent Design" are simply lying to the public.

Go to ID The Future and click on the story about Nancy Bryson Question Darwin and Face the Consequences

*******
Update 4/27/08 @ 11:14 a.m. PT:

Just noticed something today. Discovered while doing another search for "Expelled" that the site called "Tailrank," which claims:



We track the hottest news in the blogosphere!


And states:



What is Tailrank?
Tailrank finds the best content from thousands of blogs so you don't have to!


- should change their moniker to "best BIASED content...!"

Why?

Because it would be more accurate.

Just do your own search like "Expelled Movie on Tailrank" and see that most (if not ALL) of the results turn up blogs/articles with only NEGATIVE reviews and comments!

Here is what else they claim:




What's Tailrank?
Tailrank is a memetracker which finds the hottest posts from millions of blogs so you don't have to!

How does it work?
We find the hottest stories by tracking conversations between blogs.

Tailrank takes into consideration linking behavior, the text of the post, links in common with other users, text relevance, weblog ranking, past performance, and various other factors for recommendations.


I suppose that bias would come under "various other factors for recommendation."

Wow!

Perhaps I should have considered myself lucky for all of the times when "Talk Wisdom" was previously "Tailranked." Perhaps it's not that they are anti-Christian over there, but they are definitely pro-Big-Science and pro-Darwinism!

I don't think that a non-biased search engine even exists out there!

Why?

Because each search engine designer obviously has bias towards topics he/she dislikes!

Oops...used that naughty word...designer!

Even if links to "both sides" of the issue are there, it seems to me that the "politically correct" links are displayed much more prominently.

*******
4/28/08

Please see my new post Expelled Reveals Darwinism as an Idol

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

More Hate Mail!

How ironic is it that people (who, most likely consider themselves 'tolerant') come over to a Christian blog and decide to spew their hatred at me via "signing" my guestbook?

Here are three disparaging entries:

"David" from Canada
Saturday March 8, 2008 8:25:27 AM
Mesg:
The problem is not with God or his son. It falls with Gods followers. You preach love but your message is nothing but hate and intolerance. Your hateful words hurt many families and mostly the children of these families. Because of intolerance Children of Gay families are more likely to commit suicide. You go on about protecting children but at the same time you and your right wing followers hurt more children than another group of people. I thank God that not all Christians are nuts like you and your followers and that they follow God true words...love your neighbor. protect all of Gods children. You will lose your unfounded fight and the true children of God will triumph.I hope you can sleep at night knowing the harm you have caused gay families and single parent families. You and your followers have made Religion a dirty word.You just prove how crazy all of you really are...Keep up the good work!

*******

"Meg" from Europe:

Time:
Saturday April 19, 2008 5:16:24 PM
Mesg:
The only good christian is a dead one, because where christians lives, death follow.

*******

"Kris" from Washington:


Time:
Wednesday April 23, 2008 1:18:00 PM

Mesg:
How people as ignorant and ungrateful as you can survive without someone spoon feeding you is beyond me. The article by the wacky, bible thumping woman about the "Expelled" movie is nothing more than deluded, radical rightwing, typical bile from someone who lives in a fantasy world and doesn't have a clue about reality. You thumpers are the biggest problem on this planet. You are the most limited thinkers possible and are dangerous to the future on mankind. You are enormously hypocritical. You use, and benefit from science, but deny it's wisdom and facts. since you don't believe science or trust it, why don't you get rid of all the conveniences and benefits that science has provided for you?? Go live in a cave and don't partake of any modern conveniences, like computers, TVs, medicine, vehicles, houses, clothing, store bought food, toiletries, phones, electricity, health care, and all the other things science has made possible and available for you and all the other people on t...

*******

Nice...huh?

Who Can Be Trusted?

It was interesting to read the results of the exit polls after the Pennsylvania primary last night. Apparently, those who entered into the voting booths had trust issues with both Democratic candidates! I generally rely on Real Clear Politics for primary information. However, while scrolling through the latest results, I could not find the primary percentages regarding "trust" in their stats.

Fox News has them!




Which candidate do you think is honest and trustworthy? Clinton Obama
Only Hillary Clinton (20%) 99% 1%
Only Barack Obama (30%) 4% 96%
Both of them (37%) 64% 36%
Neither of them (11%) 70% 30%

Number of responses: 2096




Which candidate do you think is honest and trustworthy?
Hillary Clinton is (57%) Clinton: 76% Obama: 24%
Hillary Clinton is not (41%) Clinton: 22% Obama: 78%

Number of responses: 2096

Which candidate do you think is honest and trustworthy?
Barack Obama is (67%) Clinton: 37% Obama: 63%
Barack Obama is not (31%) Clinton: 89% Obama: 11%

Number of responses: 2096


The stats didn't copy very well here. You can go to the site for a better visual.

I thought it interesting that more people would gravitate towards John McCain if Hillary was not the nominee:


If these are the only candidates on the ballot in November, for whom would you vote? Clinton Obama
Barack Obama, the Democrat (72%) 39% 61%
John McCain, the Republican (15%) 90% 10%
Would not vote for president (10%) 98% 2%

Number of responses: 2096

If these are the only candidates on the ballot in November, for whom would you vote? Clinton Obama
Hillary Clinton, the Democrat (81%) 62% 38%
John McCain, the Republican (10%) 30% 70%
Would not vote for president (7%) 5% 95%

Number of responses: 2096


It would appear that in politics, trust about the candidates can be a difficult thing to grasp, and maintain.

Many people think the same thing about the media. Who in the media can genuinely be trusted?

While reading a portion in Newsmax Magazine called "Beltway Bits," I read the following:


When FBI agent George Piro recently described debriefing Saddam Hussein for seven months after his capture, he disclosed that the Iraqi dictator admitted planning to restart his weapons of mass destruction program within a year. That plan included developing nuclear weapons, according to Saddam.

The revelation should have been Page One news in every newspaper. It would have further justified President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. But many in the mainstream media could not bear to hear that Bush might have done something right.

When Piro's interview came out in my book, The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack - written by Ronald Kessler, NBC Nightly News, Fox News, and Newsmax ran the news, but few newspapers published a story.

Two and a half months later, 60 Minutes ran the first television interview with Piro. The interview buried the reference to Saddam's nuclear planning.

The Washington Post ran a 542-word story on the interview, but omitted any mention of Saddam's new nuclear plans. The New York Times ran no story.

Today, we have press censorship similar to what existed in the old Soviet Union, except the censors are journalists, and it's in reverse: news favorable to the government is suppressed.


We all know that the WMD question has been at the heart of the anti-war crowd. There has been speculation on both sides of the political debate regarding whether or not Saddam had WMD's and if he did, where did they end up? Some have speculated that they were sent to Syria.

That small piece of big news (in Newsmax) was interesting enough for me to do some Internet research. Of course, the following will not be an exhaustive piece on the subject, but the three sources that I found bring up the subject, and question, of who can be trusted to share the truth on such matters?

I first went to Ronald Kessler's original article (dated November, 2007) and read more details about Piro and Saddam.

Next, I clicked on a website that contained a video and had more George Piro news and links. In the menu there, you can see the Piro/60 Minutes interview. At the very end, the 60 Minutes interviewer asked Piro:

"Did Saddam think that Bin Laden was a threat to his regime?"

Piro:

"Yes."

You can draw your own conclusions about that.

Next, I clicked on the American Thinker blog and read the "Suicide by Cop - Saddam and A'jad" article.

James Lewis wrote:


Well, we need to be a little skeptical about Saddam's deathbed confession. Mr. Piro wouldn't be the first to be conned by Saddam.


Lewis continues:


So we still don't have an answer that makes sense. Provoking suicide by cop is not rational for Western minds.


There is a third possibility, however: Arab pride and shame. That is, after all, why Saddam's old Sunni supporters have kept fighting and dying for the last four years. There was a kind of suicidal willingness in Saddam to risk everything for his Arab warrior's honor. Maybe he really believed all those chintzy wall posters of Saddam as Saladin on his white horse. Whatever it was, in his own mind he needed to be a big hero. After the 1992 war, he required revenge, and in the Arab mindset, it was a family vendetta against the Bush dynasty.


Being a dead hero rather than a living sultan may not be rational by Western standards, but it fits the "heroic" narrative of Saddam's imagination. Remember that when thousands of Baath honchos fled the country in 2003, Saddam stayed behind, hiding in holes to evade American troops. He didn't have to do that: It was just asking for suicide by cop. In the end, we remember him looking like a homeless bum, sticking out of a hole in the ground. Death before disgrace.


That's how an honor-and-shame culture acts. It might be admirable if it were not in the cause of a bloody-minded bully.


So, it wasn't the fear of another war with Iran that caused Saddam to bluff everyone into believing that he had WMD?

Lewis:


All this is relevant today, because the mullahs next door have an even more medieval ideology than Saddam did. We may not understand why they believe it, but that doesn't change their bizarre beliefs. There are lessons to learn from Saddam Hussein.


Lewis mentions how Ahmadinejad arrested Iran's former nuclear negotiator, Mosavian, for treason. He makes the point that others, like A'jad, are willing to court suicide for their pride.

The nuclear weapons "dance" that Iran is doing with the West has a specific purpose. I think that Lewis states it more clearly than anyone else (that I have read) who has written about the subject.

Like Hitler, Saddam had the "suicide for pride" complex. Ahmadinejad is similar. Lewis cites that all one needs to do is observe:


A'jad has been drilled in the martyrdom creed by Ayatollah Khomeini himself, and passed it on to thousands of others. To understand A'jad, look at Hamas TV for children, which indoctrinates innocent toddlers into the glories of martyrdom for Allah. Chances are that A'jad is also looking for Götterdammerung, just like the Rev. Jim Jones and David Koresh, General Tojo and the Omshinrikyo sarin cult in Tokyo. He's looking for a final victory over the infidels, or magnificent personal martyrdom culminating in the coming of the Mahdi.


The cycle of indoctrination goes on through such awful "cartoons" inflicted upon children by terrorist groups like Hamas.

This is why Jimmy Carter's attempt to "talk and/or negotiate" with Hamas was so absolutely foolhardy! We already have seen what has happened. Hamas has denied that they told Carter that they would now recognize Israel's right to exist.

People...that will never happen! Period!!

The Muslim jihad against Israel has been going on far longer than its fight against the West. Carter has made himself look clueless and ignorant! He has also, perhaps inadvertently, given "legitimacy" to a terrorist group by his actions. Honestly - the man should stick to his worthy work in Habitat for Humanity and STAY OUT OF POLITICS! POLITICS DOES NOT WANT YOU, Mr. Carter! NOR, DOES IT WANT YOU TO BROADCAST YOUR NAIVE IDEOLOGY!!

Iran has no intentions of making peace with either Israel or the West. Lewis explains why:


But as part of that narrative, Tehran must be attacked by the infidels, even though it's perfectly innocent of any crime. So A'jad wants war, but he also wants it to arouse the final Muslim jihad against all the infidels. It's Armageddon, but on his terms. That is why he needs to threaten the West again and again in public. He will provoke and provoke again, and escalate his rhetoric, until he can either explode his own nuke bomb or die.

Ahmadi-Nejad is not a normal, rational politician. He lives in a different world. Call it honor, or pride, or an inverted inferiority complex. Call it a Wagnerian opera. A'jad is Saddam with a martyrdom complex. Westerners will try and try to explain him in rational terms. But it's the wrong template.


Likewise, Carter trying to rationalize with Hamas is a complete waste of time. When will liberals like him ever learn that fact? The following conclusion by Lewis could just as well be applied to the Hamas terrorists:


When you see A'jad, think Jim Jones or David Koresh. Think Tojo or Hitler, or Ayatollah Khomeini. Here is a man who is ready to die and kill for his creed, as mad as it is. He doesn't go for carrots and sticks. His provocations are designed primarily to maneuver the West into his own psychodrama. If he were standing on a ledge on the Empire State Building we could let him jump. But he's clever enough to realize that we cannot ignore nukes in the hands of a martyrdom fanatic. Like Saddam, he has a kind of suicidal streak. He's willing to go if he takes others with him. It's his lack of rationality (by our standards) that makes him so dangerous.



Back to this election.

Both Hillary and Obama want to withdraw our troops before success in Iraq is assured. That would be DISASTROUS for Iraq, DISASTROUS FOR the security that has been built up there, and DISASTROUS FOR the safety and security of America!!

I do not trust either one of them to lead this great nation. They may be considered "nice people" by many Americans. They may be good at preaching their "hope" and "change" and "we will" mantras to the masses at their rallies. The MSM may be giddily backing one over the other.

But I ask you. What kind of "change" would either one of them bring?

Is it the kind of change that would make us safe from fanatical radical Islamo-fascists that hunt for new ways to destroy us each and every day?

Where's the "hope" in that?

Protecting our nation and keeping our freedom are the first responsibilities of our president and government officials. Obama is too green, and hopelessly naive about national security and foreign policy to ever responsibly lead us in that regard. The Clintons had their chance to protect this nation in the 90's. Bill's distraction and inaction led to the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil - ever - in the history of our nation! Why in the world would we want them back?

I certainly don't.

There is one candidate left standing.

John McCain.

Although he wasn't my first choice for the Republican presidential ticket, his knowledge, expertise, and experience is light-years ahead of either Hillary's or Obama's.

Who can genuinely be trusted during this time of global terrorism and jihad being directed at the West, Israel, and around the world?

I think that man is John McCain.

I also have come to the realization that he is the candidate of destiny. He survived imprisonment and torture at the hands of his captors during the Vietnam war. Upon his release, he immediately pledged to continue to serve our country. He has served many years in the Senate. He has done so, faithfully. Even though I have disagreed with some of his bills (like the illegal immigration amnesty bill - but he has, admittedly, since seen the light on that) and some of the domestic policies of the past that he had (or had not) supported, the bottom line is that he continues to demonstrate genuine love, respect, desire to protect, and honor for our nation.

Unlike John Kerry, McCain doesn't "brag" about "purple hearts" received for military service for our country. Nor, did he ever become an anti-war protester who disparaged fellow military buddies like Kerry did after Vietnam. McCain doesn't tout his service accomplishments. He speaks little about his own, terrible, POW experience.

Instead, he shares a story about a Vietnam POW who was beaten for sewing an American flag into his shirt.

Just think about the difference between that POW, Mike Christian, and Barack Obama. Obama, living in freedom and comfort here in the United States won't even wear a flag lapel pin on his jacket. Christian, despite being beaten for it, has such regard, honor, love, and respect for this nation that he would sew a flag in his shirt during imprisonment. He did such a brave thing despite the fact that he was imprisoned and tortured because of his duty and call to serve this nation.

Such a contrast speaks volumes...doesn't it?

Despite all that McCain has gone through, the Lord of heaven and earth has preserved this man for a most important reason. I truly believe that all that has happened in McCain's life has culminated for such a time as this - our need for him to be the next President of the United States.

Hat tips:

Real Clear Politics
Fox News
Newsmax
Mahalo.com
American Thinker
Snopes.com

*******


Update @ 10:46 a.m.

Please read these posts from Joel C. Rosenberg's blog!

Jimmy Carter - America's Worst Ex-President: What is it about evil he doesn't understand?

GLENN BECK ASKS IF CARTER/HAMAS MEETING HAS PROPHETIC IMPLICATIONS: Calls Dead Heat "fantastic, phenomenal"

ATTENTION, MRS. CLINTON: AHMADINEJAD CANNOT BE DETERRED: Rush Limbaugh cites Epicenter analysis on today's show

HT: Joel C. Rosenberg blogspot.com

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

CA Marriage Amendment on Ballot!

Great news! The California Marriage Amendment will be on the ballot in November!

Five months and 1.1 million signatures later, the California marriage amendment is headed to the November ballot.

Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, said he was "thrilled."

"The fact that we will turn in 1.1 million signatures is unprecedented, coming from the grassroots and the churches of this state," he said. "We know that the road ahead will be especially quarrelsome, but we look for Christians to stand up, to represent biblical truth and God's will for marriage."

The amendment to the state constitution would protect marriage from the courts and the Legislature. The state Supreme Court is scheduled to rule by early June on a series of lawsuits challenging the state's existing one-man, one-woman marriage laws. The Legislature has passed back-to-back same-sex "marriage" bills, both of which were vetoed by the governor.

"This shouldn't be something left to the court either now or in the future," Brian Brown, executive director of the California office of the National Organization for Marriage, told The Associated Press. "The idea that California voters should be the ones to decide this is an idea that resonates with people."


HT: CitizenLink

"Expelled" Movie Exposes Mini-gods of Liberal Fascism

I know. Some readers here might be thinking...not another blogpost about that movie, "Expelled"'!

Yes. Another blogpost and link to a terrific article about this movie. Let's just say that Carol Devine-Molin's article, "Ben Stein Assails the Intelligensia," almost flawlessly reflects the truth about why this movie has drawn the hysterical ire of the liberal leftists. I couldn't have said it better!

[Note: some movie spoilers ahead.]

Just take a look at some of the most important points in her piece:




Ben Stein's new documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a riveting expose of the intolerant academic community that systematically declares war on anyone or any institution [i.e. Seattle's Discovery Institute] that dares to question liberal Darwinian orthodoxy. "Correct speak" and "correct think" are de rigueur among scholars, who are expected to toe the line that "evolution" and "natural selection" are the be all and end all when it comes to deciphering the origins of mankind.

Thankfully, a few brave scholars have had the intestinal fortitude to challenge Darwinian theory, which cannot properly account for the creation of complex biological mechanisms. These academicians have underscored that the statistical odds are infinitesimal that human DNA could have emerged by evolutionary means as posited by Darwin. By raising the specter of "Intelligent Design", these renegade scholars have been subjected to terrible smears and utter ruination of their scientific careers. But should anyone be astonished? The modus operandi of the Leftist intelligentsia has always been to protect and perpetuate the big propaganda machine and destroy anyone at variance with dogma.

What is so great about this movie is the fact that Ben Stein interviewed the liberal elitists (a.k.a. the "modus operandi of the big propaganda machine") and they literally expose their own bias and hate-filled motives with their own words!

This is precisely why one of the biggest "stars" of the MOP Machine (Modus Operandi Propaganda machine), Richard Dawkins, is frothing at the mouth over how ridiculous he came off (again...using his own words!!!) in the movie!

Stein's research, interviews of people on both sides of the issue and final conclusion for why the political Left has such a virtual stranglehold on academia will astound you! I am telling you only so much so that you will go and see the movie and be stunned for yourself!!

Ben Stein figuratively MOPS the floor free of the propaganda machine's ostracization and then, meticulously exposes what many people have often thought about why there is no chance (excuse the pun!) for Intelligent Design to be given any platform in the academic world when liberal elitists run the show. "No debate allowed" is their mantra. Yet, when NO ONE in their political propaganda playground group could answer Ben's question, "How did life begin?" - they would rather believe that it somehow formed on the back of a crystal or that we were "seeded" by aliens from another universe. But mention that life (especially in biology and in the fine-tuning of the universe) appears to be designed; the liberal elitists scream "Creationism"! That's their excuse to keep any conversation about even the possibility of design being seen in biology off the table of discussion. Devine-Molin said it well:




"Correct speak" and "correct think" are de rigueur among scholars, who are expected to toe the line that "evolution" and "natural selection" are the be all and end all when it comes to deciphering the origins of mankind.

True signs of Marxist liberals!

Another part of the movie (discussed in the second half) is the irrefutable connection that Stein shows between Darwin's "survival of the fittest" mindset and how it influenced Hitler and the Nazis.




The truth of the matter is that when the Nazis perpetrated the Holocaust, they were indeed influenced by Darwin, eugenics and the concept of "natural selection" in efforts to create their "master race". At the very least, Darwinian theory provided the Nazis with the rationale to enact their heinous ethnic cleansing for the "greater good".

Ben Stein has provided his audience with incisive analysis -- The Nazis were dyed-in-the-wool atheists who fancied themselves as mini-gods poised to develop their man-made utopia. Part and parcel of that plan was to rid the gene pool of all so-called "undesirables" including the Jews, gypsies, handicapped and political dissenters.

Stein's visit to the "Eugenics" lab of Nazi Germany and the commentary offered by the woman explaining what happened there was so gut-wrenching. The audience was silent during that portion. We were all probably thinking the same thing. How could man's inhumanity towards man be so despicable? I'll tell you what triggered it (at least in this case). Darwinism's role in convincing people towards atheism.

The plight of Terri Schiavo came to mind. I thought about the priest who visited her and said that if he had attempted to cool her chapped lips with water from the vase of flowers at her bedside, he would have been arrested. This woman was court-ordered to starve and dehydrate to death. The "Eugenics" of Nazi Germany has become the liberal left's "euthanasia" clarion call of today. AWFUL!!!

The Holocaust scenes and discussion were reminders of the huge difference between insanity and evil. When Stein asked a person he was interviewing if Hitler was "insane," the man said no. He was an intelligent, ruthless leader who probably thought he was doing "good." But the fact is Hitler was evil.

[Update @ 10:40 a.m. PT: To view a movie clip that shows a portion of this subject (which is one of the most powerful and controversial parts of the film), go to
Forerunner.com]


The first thing that popped into my mind at that point was the American Holocaust of abortion. People who preach the mantra of "choice," are, in effect, promoting the evil of killing babies in the womb. People who believe in "choice" may think that they are doing "good" (just as Hitler may have thought when he murdered the Jews, Christians, gypsies, handicapped, political dissenters and all the rest of the "undesirables" on his killing list) but Jesus Christ and morality tells us otherwise.

Choose life. Your mother did!

Perhaps you are getting the distinct impression that Stein's film cuts at the heart of much of the liberal left agenda. This is true. It does. And, what's more, it does so in a very convincing way!!

Hard-core liberals won't budge. They will always believe what they want to believe. No right-wing, Bible-thumping, conservative Christian, pro-life, pro-traditional family person like myself who is busily typing out this most important information will ever change their worldview. However, it is my hope that moderate, on-the-fence types will finally see the bankruptcy of the rabidly liberal left's agenda and see that it's end point is always the same. The immorality of many of their political positions leads to death and destruction.

Devine-Molin concludes:




Ben Stein has provided his audience with incisive analysis -- The Nazis were dyed-in-the-wool atheists who fancied themselves as mini-gods poised to develop their man-made utopia. Part and parcel of that plan was to rid the gene pool of all so-called "undesirables" including the Jews, gypsies, handicapped and political dissenters. Darwinian theory, which takes God out of the equation in man's creation, facilitated an atmosphere that devalued human life in Nazi Germany. And let there be no mistake, the Nazis were not conservatives or right-wingers, but ardent socialists and fascists, as adeptly delineated by Jonah Goldberg in his bestseller, "Liberal Fascism", which chronicles the history of the political Left.

HT: GOP USA

Survivors of Abortion Holocaust

Forerunner.com

Monday, April 21, 2008

Preliminary Review of "Expelled"

The movie was excellent!!! It is my desire, and plan, to prepare a much more detailed review of "Expelled." I definitely want to see it again!!!

[Note: This post might contain what some would consider as "movie spoilers."]

This preliminary review does not contain all of my personal feelings and reactions to everything that was covered in the movie. As I had previously stated, I will reserve most of that for my next detailed review. However, I must share some of my feelings, today, about a few parts that demonstrated how stunningly cruel Godless mankind can be.

The good part about this film is its honesty and humor. There were many scenes where I found myself laughing out loud! Ben Stein did a marvelous job with this documentary! He masterfully injected lots of humor throughout the beginning of the film.

Closer to the conclusion...my eyes welled with tears. The portion on Eugenics being inflicted upon the "sick," "mentally ill," and/or other "undesirables" during the Nazi era (at the place were such people were experimented on and exterminated) was so emotionally gripping! It is appalling to realize that such evil was inflicted by the Nazis who were intent on creating a "superior race." It is truly a frightening example of how history proves that Godless, unrestrained man has a natural penchant for evil, criminality and brutal inhumanity.

The entire theater was so quiet at that point. I could tell that many, if not all of the people were having an extreme emotional reaction to what they were seeing and hearing.

We can clearly see that the current 'culture of death' here in America, as well as in many places around the world, often emanates from atheism (or, in the case of radical Islam - belief in a false god) that many proponents (I'M NOT SAYING ALL SO DON'T SCREAM AT ME!) of Darwinian philosophy hold.

Though, only mentioned briefly, the abortion philosophy of Eugenics adherent, Margaret Sanger, reflects many today who hopelessly and maddeningly manage to just shrug their shoulders at child murder in the womb. To me, abortion is just as unconscionable as the Eugenics mentality of the Nazis. But the abortion industry earns many people and organizations millions of dollars. Apparently, money is more important than the lives of unborn children. We have our own shameful American 'Holocaust of abortion' perpetrated by evil groups like Planned Infanticide.

Of course the horrendous history and description of Nazi Germany's Holocaust tore me up as it usually does any time that the topic comes up.

As I had previously mentioned, it is difficult to review this film without giving away a lot of its content. When I post my detailed review, it will have many more movie spoilers...so I hope that you will go out and see the movie before you read it!

Today, I would like to share where my interest in this very important subject began.

Starting in 1999, I attended a series of lectures on Intelligent Design at BIOLA University (mentioned in the film). Here is a portion of what I had learned back then that was finally exposed in this excellent movie!!

In “First Things,” Phillip E. Johnson wrote, “Those in scientific leadership cannot afford to disclose that commitment (to materialism) frankly to the public. Imagine what chance the affirmative side would have if the question for public debate were rephrased candidly as ‘Resolved, that everyone should adopt an a priori commitment to materialism.’ Everyone would see what many now sense dimly: that a methodological premise which is useful for limited purposes has been expanded to form a metaphysical absolute.”

“People who define science as the search for materialistic explanations will find it useful to assume that such explanations always exist. To suppose that a philosophical preference can validate a cherished theory is to define ’science’ as a way of supporting prejudice. Yet that is exactly what the Darwinists seem to be doing when their evidence is evaluated by critics who are willing to question materialism.”


Many scientists and philosophers think that a dedication to materialism is the defining characteristic of science. If design in biology is real, then the designer also might be real, and scientific materialists contemplate this possibility (if at all) with outright panic. The concept that the universe is the product of a rational mind provides a far better metaphysical basis for scientific rationality than the competing concept that everything in the universe, including our minds, is ultimately based in the mindless movements of matter.

As Phillip E. Johnson had stated seven years ago, if the commitment to such materialistic explanation were exposed to the public, then people would realize the REAL reason that Intelligent Design is being rejected by scientist elitists in academia today.


"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was far better than I thought that it would be. Far better than I even could have hoped it would be!! It gets to the heart of the controversy, and how one side is not only dominating its presentation of its particular worldview, but also firing people (i.e. university professors, journalists) who don't "toe the line" towards Darwinism exclusivism. Its like a dogma! It is "political correctness" taken to an unnecessary extreme! It is, in fact, a type of "religion"!

It will be difficult to write a review without giving away the most important facts that Stein uncovered and exposed to the public via this film!! Everyone in the theater yesterday clapped at the end!!

Mike wrote a comment that had this thought:



"perhaps the bigger question, though, is why is populating all of creation by evolutionary means such a threat?"


This film poses, and answers this question:

"perhaps the bigger question, though, is why is populating all of creation by intelligent design means such a threat?"

This film answers that question...precisely...and exposes how one side (Darwinism elitists) have used the universities, media, and the courts to erect a "Berlin Wall" preventing the free speech, presentation of a worldview, and ideas of those who hold counter scientific views (with evidence to support such views) against the "sacred cow" of Evolution (particularly macro-evolution which is really an extrapolation of the evidence for micro-evolution used to create a long-held but worthless fairy tale portion of the theory).

What is most obvious in all of this is the fact that intelligence in science matters!! However, it is being squelched by those who fear that a competing theory might have some measure of merit. ID is currently only able to chip away at that Berlin Wall, but when more of the public find out the REAL MOTIVES of why such a Wall is up in academic circles, they will most likely protest and work to change what is going on!

Those who have lost their jobs because of speaking out against the "powers that be" in science academia are the real heroes - because they have determined to follow the evidence where it is now leading - despite being forced to lose such things as tenure/jobs in their fields of expertise.

Everyone, please go out and buy "The Privileged Planet" to help support one such science professor (Guillermo Gonzalez) who was denied tenure because the book he co-wrote showed SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that our planet is, indeed PRIVILEGED because of evidence of design (and because of such design - a purpose for our lives) in the Cosmos!

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Expelled Brings 'Big Bang' from Left!

Today, I am going to see Ben Stein's new movie documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

If you want a quick laugh, click on the Jib Jab 51 second video (on right side at above link).




"Darwin Daze Sock Hop" with your favorite, popular, big science students. Watch as they 'mix it up' on the dance floor!"


Ha!

Lots to see at the "Expelled" playground link! I want a T-shirt!

The controversy over this film began quite a while ago and has now been whirled into a frenzy! Note the date of the posting at the LifeEthics.org blogpost - October of 2007!

There are many "big science" supporters who have posted comments. We see, once again, that many continue to use the typical, rabid, and condescending rhetoric they have become famous for!

Thankfully, there are level headed scientists who do not pander to the leftist elites, their a priori commitment to materialism-only explanations, or their constant criticisms.

I particularly liked the latest one:




Anonymous said...
I have been a scientist for over 40 years and scientists routinely teach untestable theories in the classroom. For example, string theory is untestable, but it is routinely discussed in scientific circles and in the classroom. The only difference between string theory and intelligent design is that it doesn't involve the possible existence of a creator (i.e., God). Most scientists are happy to teach/discuss fringe, untestable theories as long as God is removed from the equation. As a believer in God, I am not opposed to teaching evolution as long as an honest debate of its many weaknesses and untestable aspects is allowed. The truth is, scientists who question the validity macro-evolution do so at their own peril, because the scientific community is so close-minded. Expelled simply exposes this fact in a humorous way. In my opinion, there is a desperate need for exposing modern scientific education for what it really is: indoctrination and brain-washing of people to disbelieve in the existence God. Three cheers for Ben Stein and his new movie.

By the way, for you hardcore evolutionists, questioning the validity of macro-evolutionary theory does not invalidate or jeopardize the medical advances being achieved by using the finer aspects of evolutionary theory to better understand the living things. Hence, there is absolutely nothing inherently sinister or wrong about questioning the more questionable aspects of evolutionary theory. Such a debate is needed and would be healthy for the scientific community.

4/20/2008 7:26 AM


Read Jill Stanek sees ‘Big Bang’ coming from the left April 18!


Be back later with my evaluation of the movie!

*******
Preliminary Review:


The movie was excellent!!! I am preparing a review, but would love to see it again!!!

I would like to share where my interest in this very important subject began.

Starting in 1999, I attended a series of lectures on Intelligent Design at BIOLA University (mentioned in the film). Here is a portion of what I had learned back then that was finally exposed in this excellent movie!!

In “First Things,” Phillip E. Johnson wrote, “Those in scientific leadership cannot afford to disclose that commitment (to materialism) frankly to the public. Imagine what chance the affirmative side would have if the question for public debate were rephrased candidly as ‘Resolved, that everyone should adopt an a priori commitment to materialism.’ Everyone would see what many now sense dimly: that a methodological premise which is useful for limited purposes has been expanded to form a metaphysical absolute.”

“People who define science as the search for materialistic explanations will find it useful to assume that such explanations always exist. To suppose that a philosophical preference can validate a cherished theory is to define ’science’ as a way of supporting prejudice. Yet that is exactly what the Darwinists seem to be doing when their evidence is evaluated by critics who are willing to question materialism.”

Many scientists and philosophers think that a dedication to materialism is the defining characteristic of science. If design in biology is real, then the designer also might be real, and scientific materialists contemplate this possibility (if at all) with outright panic. The concept that the universe is the product of a rational mind provides a far better metaphysical basis for scientific rationality than the competing concept that everything in the universe, including our minds, is ultimately based in the mindless movements of matter.


As Phillip E. Johnson had stated seven years ago, if the commitment to such materialistic explanation were exposed to the public, then people would realize the REAL reason that Intelligent Design is being rejected by scientist elitists in academia today.


"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was far better than I thought that it would be. Far better than I even could have hoped it would be!! It gets to the heart of the controversy, and how one side is not only dominating its presentation of its particular worldview, but also firing people (i.e. university professors, journalists) who don't "toe the line" towards Darwinism exclusivism. Its like a dogma! It is "political correctness" taken to an unnecessasry extreme! It is, in fact, a type of "religion"!

It will be difficult to write a review without giving away the most important facts that Stein uncovered and exposed to the public via this film!! Everyone in the theater yesterday clapped at the end!!

Mike wrote a comment that had this thought:

"perhaps the bigger question, though, is why is populating all of creation by evolutionary means such a threat?"


This film poses, and answers this question:

perhaps the bigger question, though, is why is populating all of creation by intelligent design means such a threat?

This film answers that question...precisely...and exposes how one side (Darwinism elitists) have used the universities, media, and the courts to erect a "Berlin Wall" preventing the free speech, presentation of a worldview, and ideas of those who hold counter scientific views (with evidence to support such views) against the "sacred cow" of Evolution (particularly macro-evolution which is really an extrapolation of the evidence for micro-evolution used to create a long-held but worthless fairy tale portion of the theory).

What is most obvious in all of this is the fact that intelligence in science matters!! However, it is being squelched by those who fear that a competing theory might have some measure of merit. ID is currently only able to chip away at that Berlin Wall, but when more of the public find out the REAL MOTIVES of why such a Wall is up in academic circles, they will most likely protest and work to change what is going on!

Those who have lost their jobs because of speaking out against the "powers that be" in science academia are the real heroes - because they have determined to follow the evidence where it is now leading - despite being forced to lose such things as tenure/jobs in their fields of expertise.

Everyone, please go out and buy "The Privileged Planet" to help support one such science professor (Guillermo Gonzalez) who was denied tenure because the book he co-wrote showed SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that our planet is, indeed PRIVILEGED because of evidence of design (and because of such design - a purpose for our lives) in the Cosmos!

More later....

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Yesterday's Encounter

Yesterday's encounter kept me awake last night. I could not help but think about that young lady and her situation. While replying to Susan's comment in yesterday's post, I wrote this:

Isn't it amazing that such divine encounters happen when we least expect them? When I shared this event with my son (who arrived home about an hour after it happened), my daughter (who was traveling in the car with some friends), and then my husband at work, (who was very concerned...then laughed when I described Sasha racing in circles around the women outside on my front lawn just as the police officers arrived); it was then that I realized that the Lord must have directed her to my particular house.

These things do not happen by accident.

We live about 7 houses down from a main rural road. I don't know whether or not she tried knocking on other doors before she got to mine.

I have been thinking about this terribly troubled young woman who is only a year younger than my own daughter. She has so many "strikes" against her. She is deaf, mute, schizophrenic and bi-polar. I laid awake in bed for hours last night thinking about her. Mostly, I thought about how would a Christian witness to someone like that? Would sharing the gospel be comprehended?

Susan, I cannot tell you how many times the Lord has led me to either a Bible verse, Christian book, article, or a Christian friend's words when such deep questions enter into my mind.


This time, my mind was led to recall a portion of a chapter from the new book I am currently reading. It is called, To Everyone An Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview. Excellent book!! I am enjoying reading it!

In the chapter entitled, "Religious pluralism and Christian exclusivism," author David K. Clark brings up the question that Arlen had previously asked at this blog; namely, what about those who have "never heard" or, as this new book states, "can't understand a religious message."

Several commenters contributed excellent answers in that previous thread! You might notice that Clark's answer includes some of them. I just thought that the author's answer to this very important question was remarkably good!

Clark writes:

With Christianity, what about people who lived before Jesus? Or cultures where Jesus is unknown? Or people who can't understand the Christian message--like very young children?


I would add people like the young woman who came to my home yesterday. We can each wonder - does God have special grace for people like her? I think that Clark gives us a sufficient answer to this question. Readers, let me know what you think.

Clark continues:

Exclusivists [described in the book as believers in Christ as being the only way to God the Father] offer many responses. For one thing, many qualifications fit with exclusivism. Some say God gives special grace to children or others who can't understand a religious message. Others say that God knows every person who would respond and ensures that all people who would believe have a chance to believe.

For a Christian, this objection is difficult because we just don't know all that God will do for people who don't know about Jesus. But we do know about the character and the intentions of God. Regarding God's character, among God's essential attributes are justice (intense opposition to evil) and grace (passionate love for people). Regarding his intentions, a deep divine passion is to rescue all people. If we start with what we know, we can gain confidence. Somehow--it's speculation to say exactly how--God is at work to draw all people to himself.

One reasonable scenario is that God will give all people the opportunity to receive salvation. How God will do this is partly clear and partly hidden. The clear part is that God has instructed Christians to offer to others the opportunity to receive the gift of salvation. The less clear part is what God is doing behind the scenes. If God's character and intentions are as the Bible says, I surmise God is doing far more than we know. So, on the one hand, it would be arrogant for Christians to presuppose and mistaken for critics to assume that God's entire effort is limited to what human beings do. On the other hand, it would be irresponsible for Christians to conclude they may shirk their duty to share the message of Jesus just because God works in unexpected ways behind the scenes to bring his love to the world.

As I said, we don't know all God's ways. As a Christian, I say some things (like my responsibility to humbly share Jesus with others) are clear and nonnegotiable. But others are less clear. To answer the third charge against Christian exclusivism, however, it's enough to know that God will both conquer evil and draw all repentant people to himself.


What a powerful statement is contained in that last sentence!! It describes why Christ came to die on the cross for our sins and the purpose of the gospel message!!

Clark continues:

The objection is that exclusivism is unfair to those who have no chance for salvation because, humanly speaking, they haven't heard that message. But I believe God will give the chance to all. We don't know how this works. If God is committed to drawing all people to himself, then the objection doesn't hold against Christian exclusivism. We can reasonably infer, given God's commitment to overcome evil, his longing that all people love him, and his infinite resourcefulness, that his plan is fair. Abraham once asked rhetorically, "Will not the God of all the earth do what is right?" We don't know exactly how, but we have confidence he will. (bold mine)


Clark's last two sentences reminded me of one of Arlen's comments in the Never Heard of Jesus? thread:

"But quite frankly, if we knew everything, we wouldn’t need faith."

Friday, April 18, 2008

Just Another Day

About two hours ago (11 a.m. PT), my doorbell rang. Then, I heard a constant, frantic-like kind of knocking on the door. I peaked out the front window, expecting to find either the UPS man, or JW's at my door. Perhaps the Mormons were back on my block?

As I looked out the window, there was a very frightened, young hispanic woman with a terrified look in her eyes. She was crying hysterically. I asked through the window what was wrong. She was out of breath and didn't seem able to speak. She motioned towards the street, trying to communicate that someone, or something, was after her. She made motions that indicated to me that she was hurt, perhaps abused. She was shaking, hands at her throat, and tried to show me her scratched arm.

She obviously couldn't speak. It was then that I realized she must be deaf. She motioned that she wanted to write something down. I opened the door a crack, motioned for her to come in and mouthed, "do you want to come in?"

She nodded yes! As I closed the door behind us, she wanted to be sure that the front door was locked. I went to the back door and locked it, too.

I immediately got paper and pen and she wrote - call 911. That's what I did.

Meanwhile, a blue van pulled up with several people in it. She looked out the window with me and it made her very upset to see them there.

Since I didn't know whether they were friend or foe, I didn't open the door. They never did come to the door, anyway.

She began writing, somewhat incoherently, that she wanted the police to come and get her.

Meanwhile, the 911 operator started asking me for a full description of her.

I went over to the front door window again. Two young women were now out of the van, standing under a tree on my lawn. One was on her cell phone.

It was then that the 911 person learned, and then relayed to me, the girl's case and situation. Apparently, the young girl (age 19) suffers from schizophrenia and is bipolar. She was to be taken for a mental health evaluation that day. I'm not sure whether she escaped from the van, or from a residence.

The 911 person told me to "keep my distance" from her. This was right after she asked me to check and see if the girl had a knife or any other weapon on her!

Too late. I already had gently placed my hand on her hand and reached around and placed my right arm around her shoulder, attempting to comfort her. I then gave her the OK sign and she put her hands over her heart and seemed relieved.

Obviously, the 911 operator was concerned for my safety. Up until that point, I hadn't even thought about my own safety! I just wanted to comfort this very scared, hysterical young woman.

When she started writing more phrases on the notepad, they weren't always coherent. She was trying to communicate to me that she was hit by someone. She also demonstrated a strangle hold on her neck and showed me scratches on her arm. She wrote down her age (19). I think she may have also written down her name on the pad. It looked like she wrote "Saemko."

Meanwhile, my puggle dog Sasha was busy sniffing her legs and wagging her tail. While on the phone with the 911 person, I tried to ease the woman's fears by encouraging her to play with Sasha and her toy.

When the girl got anxious again, I pointed to the page where I had written, "Police are on the way here."

It took about 10 or 15 minutes for them to get to my house. The 911 operator instructed me to open the front door. The girl stayed right near the doorstep as I walked out to introduce myself to the women standing under the tree on my front lawn.

Of course, I had forgotten about my puggle and she ran right out the front door! I ran back in to get her leash. The police arrived. Two squad cars and one CHP. One of the women tried to help me catch Sasha. FAT CHANCE! Sasha knew she was "loose"!

While trying to catch Sasha, I laid the cordless phone on the lawn and forgot all about the 911 operator!

Meanwhile, the girl walked towards one of the officers. He put what looked like loose, safety handcuffs on her. The sign language interpreter was communicating between the girl and the officer.

I picked up the phone and told the 911 person that the girl is now with the officers. She thanked me and said that I did a great job.

One officer approached me and asked how the girl had gotten into my house. I told him. I also offered the scribbled notes that she and I wrote to each other while she was in my home. As we walked back towards the front door, I was relieved that Sasha followed us back into the house! The officer read through some of the scribbled notes, and then took the two pages with him.

One patrol car drove off with the young girl inside. The other two officers chatted with the three women for about 10 minutes on my front lawn.

I let Sasha out into the back yard and closed the door. When I returned to the front door window, I noticed that a different officer was heading towards my front door. I opened it. He asked me a few questions about myself, the situation, and for a contact phone number.

As he was turning to go back to the patrol car, he said, "It must have been scary for you." I said, "No, not until the 911 person told me to check for any knives or weapons on her!"

The young girl and I were in my kitchen, most of the time, during this incident. There were two butcher blocks full of various knives, within reach, in full view on the counter! If the girl wanted to harm me - she could easily have grabbed a knife and used it as a weapon.

But no.

She was there asking for my help and protection until the police arrived.

I felt so bad for her. I don't know the whole story so I can't be sure whether she was being abused or her schizophrenia/bipolar disorder was causing her to be fearful.

She did write on the pad:

"I want 'move'(?) Mom in San Diego. Feel safe her."

I am praying for her safety, for successful intervention concerning her care, and for her to get the help she needs through her mental health evaluation.