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 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.


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!


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?


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, and about RC Sproul and Ligonier Ministries at

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...!"


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."


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!


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.


Please see my new post Expelled Reveals Darwinism as an Idol


GMpilot said...

I quote from

Up to now, Expelled Exposed has just been a collection of links to some pre-release reviews and blog posts about the upcoming Ben Stein festival of propaganda and lies. Now the work on the full site is done, and it contains a complete fisking of the film, all the way from its outrageous claims of a link between Darwin and Nazi eugenics, to revealing the real circumstances behind what happened to all the ID "martyrs" the movie wants you to believe were "expelled" by the Evil Darwinist Conspiracy (presumably on orders from Obergrüppenfuhrer "Blofeld" Dawkins hisownself) for daring to promote the "taboo" idea of intelligent design. And as a nice little poke in the eye, the site also features the story of someone who really was expelled: Chris Comer, who, as you will recall, was forced out of her job at the Texas Education Association for simply sending out an FYI email about the talk given here in Austin last November by Barbara Forrest.

In all, this is a vital resource to counter the despicable lies this movie is spreading.

...So far, all the publicity that matters (that is, what's appeared in the mainstream media, rather than fundie websites) about this farce has been uniformly negative, which is a good sign. It hasn't gotten — and will not get — a single favorable review from anyone who is not already a committed right-wing, fundamentalist, creationist ideologue. Now it's up to the folks who truly love and support science, knowledge, honesty, truth, and morality to keep up the heat on this disgrace, and send it down in flames where it belongs once and for all.

Now if you don't want to have your beliefs challenged, maybe you better stay away from the Expelled: Exposed site.
Meanwhile, the initial weekend's box-office take has been underwhelming, bringing in under $3 million and placing dead last on the top 10 of the weekend. Maybe if Mel Gibson had produced it...

Arlen said...


I noticed that The God Delusion is one of your favorite books. It's good to see that you have faith as well. How's that you say? You have faith that there is no god. Of course, when that day of reckoning arrives (and believe you me, no one has gotten out it yet), if you are wrong, there's going to be HELL to pay.

Anonymous said...

I found it very telling that Dawkins started off very cool and articulate, but when asked some very pointed questions, he admitted that there is a slight percentage of possibility that God exists. He was asked to put an actual number percentage figure on his belief that God DOESN'T exist. He started out at 98% probability that God doesn't exist. When asked why he picked that number, he didn't know.

Stein then kept probing about percentage of possiblity: "Could it be 78%? 56%?" Dawkins said he didn't want to put a number on it.

Stein ended up by saying, "So, it could be as low as 48%?" Dawkins said "I think it's very unlikely."

Wow. Pretty embarrassing for one of the leading luminaries of Darwinism. But what do you expect from a crowd that still has yet to come up with a credible explanation for, say, basic concepts like First Life, the existence of the universe, how something comes from nothing, metaphysical realities, why there is zero evidence in the fossil record which would support Darwinian evolution, etc? But, hey, it's only been 150 years since Darwin came up with his low grade crackpot theory. I'm sure they'll fabricate something soon in the tradition of Peking Man, Nebraska Man, the peppered moths of England, Piltdown Man, etc. I guess if evolutionists/atheists/secular humanists/philosophical naturalists want to rely on blind faith to support their religious beliefs, I should respect that. Just as I should respect the beliefs of someone who worships and believes in Spider-Man.

And no, no one was lied to about the purpose of the interviews for Ben Steins movie.They were told they were being interviewed for a movie about "the conflict between religion and science." It's clearly spelled out in the waivers they signed. The marketing manager said they were thinking of putting up copies of the waivers these guys signed on the Ben Stein Expelled website, so the truth could be clearly seen.

Bottom line: See the movie if you're interested in truth. Avoid it if you want to believe in Darwin's fairy tale.
-Bill Sikes

mike rucker said...

i visited my sister this weekend - she homeschools her son, and is much more conservative than i am. she said i should see the film, and it's not what i think it is.

i changed my 'about' page title to 'the man behind the curtain.' with issues like this film, we all seem to have hidden questions behind the questions, if that makes any sense. some people voice them; some don't, instead trying to set a trap without showing their hand (to mix metaphors).

it's another all-or-nothing issue where there is a wide middle for compromise with no one standing in it. (yet)

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

Anonymous said...

it's another all-or-nothing issue where there is a wide middle for compromise with no one standing in it. (yet)

Compromise? Not sure what you mean here, but since the nature of truth is absolute, any "compromise" you can reach would be a nonsensical lie. For example, 2+2=4 is true for everyone, at every time, in all places, forever. That's truth, and truth is anything that corresponds to reality. It may be true that you prefer vanilla to chocolate, but it is untrue that vanilla "tastes better" than chocolate; that's opinion.

Truth is far different than "feelings" or "opinions." Truth is unchanging and excludes everything that is not itself.

Would you like to "compromise" truth by saying to the budding airplane engineer, "Well, 2+2=4 is true, but since you think it equals 17 and you're such a nice person and I don't want to offend you or hurt your feelings, I'll compromise and agree that 17 is true, too"?

Don't know about you, but I'm not getting on a plane that guy designed.

Same thing is true when considering the existence of God and the existence of MACRO-evolution (completely different than micro-evolution, although Darwiniacs love to claim one proves the other.)

If God is true, macroevolution is false. If macroevolution is true, then God is false. Since the two make mutually-exclusive truth claims, they cannot both be true at the same time,and claiming there can be "theistic evolution" is a bit like claiming there are "flaming snowflakes."

-Bill Sikes

Christinewjc said...

Hi Bill,

I agree that "theistic evolution" is a hopeless oxymoron.

I have some articles written by Greg Koukl on the subject at my message board.

From the Christian and biblical standpoint, I cannot reconcile the MACRO-evolution extrapolation of the evidence for micro-evolution (which is not in dispute by Creation or ID adherents) simply because Jesus Christ Himself stands by Creation.

Wrote this previously:

Why I reject theistic evolution:

Jesus believed in and spoke about the Genesis account of Creation. That alone should be enough for Bible-believing, Word of Truth Christians.

Theistic Evolution involves the notion that God initially began creation and then used evolution to produce the universe as we know it. The big issue is with macroevolution which claims that all of life evolved fortuitously from a single cell made up of amino acids, RNA, DNA etc.; then through chance there were mutations that allowed lower, simplistic forms of life to become more complex specimens. We all emerged over time, from the slime into our present humanity. Is man in his origin the product of a purposive act of divine intelligence, or is man a cosmic accident? Are we creatures of dignity or creatures of cosmic insignificance?

Microevolution, the indication that there is a change, a progression involving different directions among various species that we can track historically is of no consequence with respect to biblical Christianity. It's the unsubstantiated myth of macroevolution that presents rational, logical as well as theological objections. One day this unmitigated nonsense will be totally rejected by the scientific community.

In this post, I will focus in on the theological objections to theistic evolution. A Christian (IMHO) cannot believe that he is a cosmic accident and at the same time believe in the sovereign God and the Creator God. Theistic evolution must make a complete allegory out of Genesis 1:1 - 2:4, for which there is no warrant. The suggestion that humanity is derived from a non-human ancestor cannot be reconciled with the explicit statement of man's creation in Genesis 2:7. Man did not evolve but rather was created from the dust of the ground. How can I know for sure? As a Bible believing Christian, I recognize that if Adam was not a real historical person, then the analogy between Christ and Adam in Romans 5:12-21 utterly breaks down.

Certainly Christ believed in a literal creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). (Christ would know, for He is elsewhere portrayed as the Creator- (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2,10.) Jesus Christ's words have the authority to be trusted in this particular matter as surely as His words can be trusted in other matters.

Romans 5:8 and John 3:16 reveals God's love for us through Christ the Redeemer. As far as Christianity is concerned, if there's no creation, then there's nothing to redeem. If we come from nothing and go to nothing, then we are nothing under any objective analysis. Nehemiah 9:6 explicitly rejects such a notion.

Anonymous said...

I could not agree more, Christine.

I have only this to add: if the evolutionist sincerely believes his ancestor originated in Darwin's (now debunked) warm, primordial nitrogen-rich soup on an ancient Earth, then he must also be of the opinion that his ancestor is the grape, the maple leaf, and the blade of grass. In fact, the evolutionist must believe of necessity that he evolved from a blade of grass as ALL living things evolved from that single cell (the origin of which they can't provide other than the guess that water dropped onto a rock for a million years and *poof* turned into a living creature. Where the rock and the water came from, well that must be from the aliens who came to Earth in their rocket ships.)

"Hard science" instead of "blind faith," indeed. And they accuse Christians of being "backwards."
-Bill Sikes