Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed... A movie review

[ARBITER01]

Hehehe,...

I should go see it soo here, the trailer on it seemed like the movie was well put together.

I believe Stein should be commended for this. It does takes some real guts to step up to a community like this and basically expose them before everyone. Just to get people to look at themselves and think is a hard thing to do nowadays in this age of me, myself, and I.

 

[Frisbee]

I have posted a review on a couple of websites and the reaction from evolutionists is vitriolic and intense. They have validated the claims of the movie for me. People who otherwise seem obsessed with "rights" such as free speech to ridiculous degrees of unreasonable intrusion in public life, are ignoring that principle when it comes to neo-Darwinism. They have one voice right now (evolution only in even the universities) and are absolutely terrified of another opinion.

It would be one thing if we were talking about just public schools, but most of the movie focused on universities. I take that back... All of the movie focused on universities. Absolutely amazing!!!

I have read the books of every single person in the movie who has written books, I've read Darwin's Origin of Species and now I will put Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" on the front burner. I'm sure the public library will have plenty of copies. That guy is a real piece of work, and I think it is important to hear all sides of the debate. As offensive as he is, I'll have to suffer through it to see what all the hub-bub is about.

An excerpt from the book...

UNDESERVED RESPECT

My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and the
other enlightened scientists of the previous section. That is why I needed to
get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin with: it has a proven capacity
to confuse. In the rest of this book I am talking only about supernatural gods,
of which the most familiar to the majority of my readers will be Yahweh, the
God of the Old Testament.

Or in other words, a full on frontal assault of Judeo-Christian religion in particular. The guy isn't an atheist apologist, he is an evangelistic God hater with a large audience falling over themselves to hear him attack the Hebrew God while letting others off the hook. WOW!!!

 

[Cabal]

Wrong answer Cabal. It's not what the film did. It showed the historical fact surrounding the excuses that Hitler used to put people who were mentally retarded into gas chambers. I have a very dear that has Down Syndrome so I can tell you from personal feelings and experience that I also find that repulsive. Not because someone told the truth Cabal. Because it happened.

Ever read Mein Kampf? No references to Darwinism. Plenty of references to Christianity though.

The attacks were on the people who were fired denied tenure and ostracized by their peers in the scientific community.

Read into it - believing in ID wasn't the single reason they were fired.

And I agree JustAsIam77, Dawkins was speechless when asked a very simple question... "Okay smartee pants, then how did life begin from a bunch or elements?". As we just saw from Cabal, the reaction seems to be to feign disbelief and to mistreat you. Dawkins couldn't answer the question. Of course.

I don't recall you asking me this question at any point so far. And anyone can be made to look stupid with clever editing.

 

[Frisbee]

When I see the line by line dissection of a writing, it is always the tell tale sign of a person who is meticulously trying to dismantle an opponent by wearing them down to a nub. But let me share with you what I see Cabal...

I see a person who seems very focused on a connection between Christianity and fascism. Look at you own signature block. But let us continue.

Yes, I’ve read Mein Kampf. In English and in German. Although I will admit that I had a very hard time with the German. My mother in law was German and she had two copies of it in her home. It is illegal in Germany for Germans to own that particular book, but she had a couple on her bookshelf. When I went over to her house I would read, and that particular book was one I tried to digest in the original language.

Regarding it’s contents, I fear that you are mistaken about why Hitler wrote what he wrote. He did indeed use Christianity to appeal to the people. Germany is a nation where almost everyone is either a Christian or an atheist (bar an insignificant number of Turkish Muslims who work there on temporary work permits). At the time that that particular book was written however, atheism was just beginning to flourish in Deutschland.

The connection between Hitler policies of extermination of select groups of individuals was based upon his belief that the Arian race (Northern Europeans) were the highest and most advanced of all human beings because they evolved to that state. Or in other words, Hitler was an evolutionist.

If Hitler was using Christianity as a weapon as he did evolution, it was a tool, not a belief. The fruit of Christianity was not evident in his behavior, I’m sure you can and will agree to this as well as understand what the fruit of the Spirit is. Or do you claim that Hitler was bearing the fruit of the Spirit?

The only logical conclusion is that Hitler was using religion Cabal. On the other hand Hitler was also using evolution. The difference is that he believed in evolution, and did not believe in Christianity. In fact, Hitler was trying to start a very Pagan cult within the Third Reich, who espoused Germanic tradition and symbols. This is all historical fact.


Now regarding what you said about ID not being the single reason they were fired…

I know some black people who were fired for various reasons. It’s only a coincidence that they all just happened to be black, right?


And finally, the question was to Dawkins not you.


I really do not like to play the line by line response game. Could you please talk like a normal person having a debate from here out? We can do the line by line thing, but I wil warn you… You’ve tried and found the end of my patience. I’m quite certain of the type of person you are, and the bible speaks very clearly about how to deal with such people. I assure you that it will be where I go next if you continue along the lines that I’ve seen thus far regarding your behavior. The choice is yours.

 

[Cabal]

When I see the line by line dissection of a writing, it is always the tell tale sign of a person who is meticulously trying to dismantle an opponent by wearing them down to a nub. But let me share with you what I see Cabal...

I see a person who seems very focused on a connection between Christianity and fascism. Look at you own signature block. But let us continue.

Yes, I’ve read Mein Kampf. In English and in German. Although I will admit that I had a very hard time with the German. My mother in law was German and she had two copies of it in her home. It is illegal in Germany for Germans to own that particular book, but she had a couple on her bookshelf. When I went over to her house I would read, and that particular book was one I tried to digest in the original language.

Regarding it’s contents, I fear that you are mistaken about why Hitler wrote what he wrote. He did indeed use Christianity to appeal to the people. Germany is a nation where almost everyone is either a Christian or an atheist (bar an insignificant number of Turkish Muslims who work there on temporary work permits). At the time that that particular book was written however, atheism was just beginning to flourish in Deutschland.

The connection between Hitler policies of extermination of select groups of individuals was based upon his belief that the Arian race (Northern Europeans) were the highest and most advanced of all human beings because they evolved to that state. Or in other words, Hitler was an evolutionist.

If Hitler was using Christianity as a weapon as he did evolution, it was a tool, not a belief. The fruit of Christianity was not evident in his behavior, I’m sure you can and will agree to this as well as understand what the fruit of the Spirit is. Or do you claim that Hitler was bearing the fruit of the Spirit?

The only logical conclusion is that Hitler was using religion Cabal. On the other hand Hitler was also using evolution. The difference is that he believed in evolution, and did not believe in Christianity. In fact, Hitler was trying to start a very Pagan cult within the Third Reich, who espoused Germanic tradition and symbols. This is all historical fact.


Now regarding what you said about ID not being the single reason they were fired…

I know some black people who were fired for various reasons. It’s only a coincidence that they all just happened to be black, right?


And finally, the question was to Dawkins not you.


I really do not like to play the line by line response game. Could you please talk like a normal person having a debate from here out? We can do the line by line thing, but I wil warn you… You’ve tried and found the end of my patience. I’m quite certain of the type of person you are, and the bible speaks very clearly about how to deal with such people. I assure you that it will be where I go next if you continue along the lines that I’ve seen thus far regarding your behavior. The choice is yours.

Sorry, my tendency is to line anyway, whether discussing or debating. Will try and post in paragraphs. And my sig was from a previous debate, it's not to establish a link between Christianity and Nazism, it was to illustrate how someone's misguided view of Christianity ended up being little different from Nazism.

Firstly: While Hitler may have believed in evolution, misuse of a theory has nothing to do with its veracity (which, as I've said before, is the main reason why ID isn't accepted and evolution is, as there is evidence for the former and not the latter). Misuse of a theory also has nothing to do with those of us a generation later who believe in it. Richard Dawkins, misguided though he is in matters of faith, is fervently against "social Darwinism." Heck, even Darwin was fervently against it as well. And while Expelled may not be explicitly relating today's scientists and Nazism etc, there are people who are already unfairly beginning to backlash against people like Shermer, etc.

Your comparison of people being fired to ID to racism (yet again with the unjustifiable comparisons) is moot, as in several of the cases there were other people fired/denied tenure along with the ID believers for many of the same reasons - except these other people weren'tID-believers. The things they most had in common would be things like low publishing rate, low research turnout, among others.

Thank you for answering my points, and I will try and avoid my usual tendency to line my response. But please let's not start the "I’m quite certain of the type of person you are" game. I could probably say a few things about you, and I doubt that either of us would agree on what the other had to say

 

[Frisbee]

If there is no basis for the claims made by Stein, then there is no claim. The movie was about the claim though. It was entirely about very prominent and credentialed researchers who lost their jobs and or tenure as a result of their views about ID. You really would have to see the movie to fully appreciate this though.

When I look around on the Internet and visit debates about ID, there is a common denominator that you can miss. It is that there is fierce opposition to ID, as it is labeled just another attempt to introduce creationism to the classroom.

If you stop and think about his, there is a lot to be told from this reaction. First and foremost is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding (whether intentional or not, it doesn't matter) about what ID is. For example...

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That is the first line of the Hebrew and Christian bible. Do you agree with it? If you do, you are an Intelligent Design supporter whether you like it or not. The reason is that in this case the intelligent designer, would be God. It doesn't speak to how, and believe it or not I fully accept everything that science has to offer in regards to natural explanations regarding biogenesis and cosmology. In fact I embrace it! I embrace all truth because I believe in a God who describes Himself as truth among other things. Either He is truth, or He is not truth. If He is truth, then we can arguably see Hi when we see truth of this type and nature. The bible itself makes the case that the heavens declare His glory. Well, I take that to mean that when we look at the universe with our mouths agape in awe and wonder, we are in awe and wonder of His creation... the physical universe.

Secondly, we are talking about universities here, not grade school. I happen to agree that we need to teach solid science in grade school. My problem is that evolution as it is presented in the form of Neo-Darwinism, is not settled science. It is a theory, and it fails to address some of the most basic questions like first cause. I realize that this starts to go into the realm of philosophy when we ponder things like first cause, but this is a part of the education, not a hindrance to it. I don’t know is an acceptable answer when you in fact, don’t know. In any case the complaints are about universities and institutions, not children. These are places where these types of things should be thoroughly examined, not suppressed.

This common theme of fierce opposition to the movie and the ID movement in general is quite telling to me. Evolutionist are either afraid, or on a mission to drive what they perceive to be the final nail in the coffin against the notion of “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

And thanks for the change in gears Cabal. I much rather discuss these things person to person in a peronable manner

 

[Cabal]

thanks for the change in gears Cabal. I much rather discuss these things person to person in a peronable manner

No thanks necessary - I am sorry for being in full-on argument mode yesterday, I think I'd just come off a Cre+Evo board (with atheist God-bashing on my left and YECs making snide remarks about my faith on my right....fun times) so....yeah. I feel a bit caught in the middle, and I get touchy sometimes. Thank you for being gracious, I really appreciate it brother!

I won't say any more on the claims made by Stein regarding specific "expulsion" cases - whether the film comes out here or not, I do plan to watch it at some point. Unfortunately, that mightn't be for quite a while...

The common issue (for me and many other evolution proponents) in what you were discussing previously seems to be: can God be brought into the realm of science?

Certainly, as I believe in Genesis 1:1, then in that sense, yes, I am a proponent of "intelligent design" - in that I believe because of my faith in the Lord, that God created the universe and everything in it, and that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. If this is the essence of ID, then fair enough - however, how does this then extend into the scientific realm?

The problem with ID is that many of the complaints that can be levelled at creationism can also be levelled at it - the main one being: ID raises more questions than it answers - and those it does answer, it leaves them untestable - you can't use, say, a spectrometer to determine if God is around you. The one thing that could possibly be observed is whether or not something is designed "intelligently." I see two initial objections to this:

1. Some would argue that while certain creations are wondrous, there are serious drawbacks to some of them. The eye is a classic example used by ID and YEC supporters alike - that something so powerful at processing optical information could not arise by mere chance, but that it was designed, and designed well. There are those who would argue (and I'm remaining neutral over whether this is enlightened or vain) that the eye could be a heck of a lot better designed.

Now, I realise the Fall of Man could be a possible answer to this - but if this is the case, how do we know whether we are looking at a spoiled, originally perfect eye, or an evolved one?

2. "Intelligence" of design hardly strikes as something that is an objective, measureable quantity. It is not something that is defined in specific units, like the metre or the second. Now, maybe ID scholars have attempted to quantitatively and qualitatively define how one should "measure" intelligence of design - but what in the way of definitions I have seen is not as precise as the quantities involved in evolutionary theory, which uses precise numbers for allele drift, etc.

This leaves aside the many other objections like:
- can the Bible/religious texts be treated as a scientific document
- do ID proponents want equality, or dominance of their theory over evolution

Yes, some evolutionists are atheists, and some of these atheists, like Dawkins, have made it their mission to attempt to take down God, and see evolution as a tool to that end. However, some of us are Christian who love God and love to see Him revealed in science, and some of us are non-confrontational atheists, who do not see ID as a viable alternative. So far, ID has yet to make a major breakthrough in the peer-review arena, or make a contribution to mankind's progress - and I truly believe that that is because it is not truly a scientific theory. It may have the potential to develop into one, or it may thrive in an alternative arena, like philosophy. However, before that can change, and before ID can stand any chance of being fully accepted into an academic arena, there is much that its proponents need to do.

 

[GenemZ]

Dear Faithful Christian...Search for Truth, Hear Truth, Learn Truth, Love Truth, Speak the Truth, Hold the Truth, and Defend the Truth til Death
The inscription on the monument to Jan Hus in the Old Town square in Prague, Czechoslovakia

I love that.

And, Hus did defend the truth till death.



.

 

[Frisbee]

“Can God be brought into the realm of science?” That question is certainly fair enough!

Think of it like this…

If God did create the heavens and the earth, then the fact He did do it makes it scientifically discoverable doesn’t it?

You know when I look at the complexity of life at the smallest levels; I’m talking about DNA, protein, cells, etc. I look at the amazing complexity and purpose that is right there for us to examine, and I see really everything I need to see.

Take just a moment and watch this short clip and tell me what you think…

http://www.allaboutscience.org/dna-double-helix-video.htm

To me it comes down to if a person wishes to believe that nothing but random chance and natural process are involved in life. Not back 14 billions years ago. Now. When you see what is happening in our bodies, in every place that life exists, one has to come to one of two conclusions… this is God caught at work, or lightening bolts, elements, compounds, time and unbelievable odds set into motion things that can explain what you are looking at.

My personal belief is that the information encoded in DNA is His fingerprint. That is information and it got here somehow. It could have happened by evolution, I can buy that. But I don’t buy the explanation that evolutionists use because they have no choice but to exclude God.

And FYI, I can relate to the bit about getting it from both ends. Folks in my church may be polite about it, but they are also silent whenever I say anything about my belief in ID and my rejection of Young Earth Creationism. Here are the things I say to them…

• Explain starlight. We live in a universe measurably larger than 6,000 light years. How do explain the fact that we can see the same stars as were recorded since what you would say was the beginning? In 4,000 BC man could write and did. We have records of the stars being recorded by the ancients. Nothing has changed.
• Why is Adam’s name man in Hebrew. The same word used for man in general, as in mankind. And why is Eve’s name “giver of life”? Two very interesting names when you examine their meaning. Is it possible that they indeed lend some meaning to the Genesis account? It reads quite differently when you read the translation for the names.
• Did the serpent talk? Literally?
• When Cain killed Abel he was banished from the garden. He complained to God that people would kill him. What people? And what were the cities he was talking about?

Anyhow, I generally get a pretty cold reception to that. Like yourself it’s not that I don’t believe, but that I try to understand everything and to know the truth. One thing that Young Earth Creationists do that really disturbs me is that they say things like “you have to take Genesis literally because it affects how the bible is translated.” My answer to that is that I want to know how it should be translated then in the light of the truths, not change the truth to make your theology work out more neatly.

The reason I am ID Cabal is that I believe that in beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I am ID because I see God when I see the language of life wrapped inside DNA being unfolded, decoded and used to do things can best be described as running the factory of life. I believe that evolution can account for some things, but I reject that God isn’t science so therefore God didn’t do it. That’s what atheists believe and must believe in order to continue to reject God. They have no alternative.

 

[GenemZ]

Shield's Law - "Without a Biblical reference attached, it is impossible to distinguish Christian fascism from Nazism."

Christian fascism is an oxymoron. Fascism is fascism.

There are those so disposed with an inclination in their sin nature to seek any means to express their expression for fascistic dominance. These, if need be, will use the Bible to satisfy their evil trend.

Christianity, on the other hand. Is anti-fascist.

John 8:32 (New International Version)
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
​

Evil minds tend to see Christianity as being fascist because effective Christianity will not compromise with evil. Evil propaganda will not influence the effective Christian as it will the dull unbeliever who conforms to what ever the current trend states is acceptable.

2 Corinthians 3:17 (New American Standard Bible)
"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
​

That does not mean to say that all Christians are representative of what Christianity is supposed to be. For, many are not. They give Christianity a bad name.

Philippians 3:18-19
"For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ,
whose end is destruction, whose god is their emotions, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things."
​

Paul was speaking of wayward believers. We had them back then. And, we have them with us (all around us) today.

2 Timothy 4:3 (New International Version)
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
​

The amazing thing is. In spite of all this? There will always be some in almost every given generation who will fight their way through, to find truth for their given generation's needs. These fight the good fight while everyone else finds a place to rest their butts on, and become self satisfied, spiritual couch potatoes.



.

 

[Cabal]

Christian fascism is an oxymoron. Fascism is fascism.

I've explained my sig once in this thread already. Of course, true Christianity and fascism are anathema to each other. I used the label ironically to prove a point to someone in another thread, as people think sticking the word Christian in front of something lends it credence

 

[Cabal]

If God did create the heavens and the earth, then the fact He did do it makes it scientifically discoverable doesn’t it?

I never know what to think about this question. Part of me thinks: well, yes, of course. The Bible does speak of all creation revealing the splendour of God. And yet there's a part of me that feels that the existence of God isn't something that could be proved empirically - otherwise, it would no longer be a matter of faith. Someday I think, we will come to a place where even science cannot go, where there is nothing left for us to observe, that will leave our greatest question permanently unanswered - e.g, what existed pre-Big Bang etc.

Of course, even when Jesus was on the earth plain to see people still found ways to reject him, so maybe there is yet reason to think God should be empirical.

Thanks for the video - nice to see some ID material. My response to the video and your questions would be: would finding a "secular" (so to speak) mechanism for explaining the origin of DNA (that was embedded in sensible, empirical observation) from current or future theory reduce that feeling of wonder for you? I don't think it would for me. (aside from everything else, there is always another layer of reality to wonder at. Quarks are awesome! )

About 5 years ago I had a period of doubting, I was scared that someday science would find a way to disprove God. God spoke to me and told me that even though he created the laws of nature and reveals himself to us through them, he is not defined by them (as he defined them in the first place), and so would never become undefined by them.

I've managed to retain my faith, despite being a firm believer in the weak anthropic principle and learning about many aspects of science that raise some profoud questions. It is for this reason, because I have this faith, that I do not personally feel that there needs be a God factor in the actual theories of science, which is what ID would seek to do. If these are God's mechanisms, then I know they are God's mechanisms, whether they point to him explicitly or not.

I do agree, though, that some outspoken atheistic evolution proponents are quite quick to use their theory to do away with God. If science's purpose is not to comment on religion, then that works both ways!

You said: "I believe that evolution can account for some things, but I reject that God isn’t science so therefore God didn’t do it."
I agree - however, I also would say, that, if evolution can't account for something, then that does not empirically prove that God did do it.

And yeah, I know all too well what discussions with YEC-believers can involve. Nicely noticed about Cain, btw. As for starlight - well....there is the idea that the speed of light may have changed in the past, and I think scientists are trying to see if the fine structure constant changed in the past (which would affect the value of c). But I strongly suspect it's not going to suddenly pull the age of the universe down seven orders of magnitude.

 

[Frisbee]

If some natural process was found to explain some of the things that I see clearly as the fingerprint of God, it wouldn’t change a thing. We are already in a state where we have been able to explain much more than Darwin would have thought even possible. So much so, that I wonder what he would think had he seen that video. Remember, Darwin thought the smallest factor he was dealing with was the cell. If he knew about DNA, I have to wonder if he would looked at the information stored in it as evidence of intelligent design.

Regarding the issue of starlight, Gerard Schroeder addressed this in the books “The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom” and “The Hidden Face of God”, I don’t remember which was which specifically that explained this best, but here’s the short version…

Time did not exist eternally as we understand time in the here and now. Here being the specific place we are in the universe, and now as in the moment in time we exist from our earth perspective. Time was created when the elements that effect time exploded into life, so it is erroneous for us to measure everything relative to earth time.

On the other hand of you were to measure time from the perspective of being on the event horizon where and when it all began, the frame of reference changes drastically. What we perceive to be long periods of time as measured by rotations of this planet around our star, would seem to be moving at a different rate of speed if you were traveling with the matter being flung in the expansion resulting from the big bang.

Schroeder does some math that seems to works out perfectly in reconciling 6 days as seen from the event horizon, and roughly 14 billion years from the earth’s perspective.

Anyhow, here’s what wikipedia had to say about it…

Schroeder bases his approach on the commonly accepted phenomenon that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer’s perspective of that event. The spatial perspectives used in these calculations rely on ancient biblical commentary as brought by Nahmanides (ca.1250) and modern astronomy. This approach has no reference to gravity or velocity. It relies solely of the effect of the stretching of space.

Same, same. But the bottom line is that he tries to reconcile science with scripture. He looked at the words used in scripture and noticed that they are not in conflict with science, but it is only when people interpret those very same words differently that a conflict appears.

To me this is all fascinating stuff! This is the kind of things that belong on really, really long chalk boards in the calculus class. Set the calculus majors loose on it! But this trend of trying to ignore it or make it go away is absurd. They should examine these things, and after examining them they find holes in his theories or anyone else’s then great, we know another way it didn’t happen! But this approach of science that things happened as they said it happened because it had to happen that way to support a certain belief system is no different than when creationists say the same thing but from the other perspective.

 

[GenemZ]

I've explained my sig once in this thread already. Of course, true Christianity and fascism are anathema to each other. I used the label ironically to prove a point to someone in another thread, as people think sticking the word Christian in front of something lends it credence

It does not prove a point. Unless you are saying I am too stupid to see it.

Its very misleading the way its worded. One would have to be naive to think what you claimed. That, on first reading, it carries the message that you resort to for your explanation.

But, maybe I am stupid.

To believe you.

Its a bad sig. Period. Someone else in the forum is using the same sig, and he is anti-Christian.

One can tell a sig by the company it keeps.



.

 

[Cabal]

It does not prove a point. Unless you are saying I am too stupid to see it. Its very misleading the way its worded. One would have to be naive to think what you claimed. That, on first reading, it carries the message that you resort to for your explanation. But, maybe I am stupid. To believe you. Its a bad sig. Period. Someone else in the forum is using the same sig, and he is anti-Christian. One can tell a sig by the company it keeps.

I have no problem with it for now. As I said, I have already attempted to explain my sig twice and I'm indifferent as to whether you believe me or not. To explain everything again in further detail would just keep derailing the thread. Now are we going to keep discussing sigs, or are we going to discuss this movie?.

 

[Cris413]

MOD HAT ON​

First I would like to say it's quite encouraging you all have seemed to recover the discussion and are quite apologetic and forgiving for your personal attacks on one another.​

Please refrain from any further such comments as this thread continues. ​

Please keep your posts contextual and
NOT personal toward any other member.​

Please keep the thread ON TOPIC.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Frisbee]

On another board I use a signature that makes a point, with a twist...

"The Hebrew god is arguably the most unpleasant character in fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

The link takes you to a website for a book that refutes Dawkin's book. I thought it was important to point out what Dawkins thinks about God, specifically the "Hebrew God".

Bottom line to me is this...

When I find myself entangled in a dispute that starts turning ugly for whatever reasons, I will warn the person I am about to shift gears and then do if it doesn't stop. Cabal in particular rose to that challenge like a gentleman I must say. What he didn't know was what I was prepared to do next. Next was that I was going to use less of my words, and more of the Lord's via scripture. The way I figure it is that if I am talking to a believer, God's word will do the conviction; not me. Most of the time, guess what happens?

I read something that applies t me as well, and I turn it down and start acting like I know I should act.

Back to this topic…

Out of curiosity, what books have you all read about Intelligent Design?

I think it is important to know what the opposition has to say in any debate, and on this particular subject my experience has been that most folks don’t really understand what they are opposing. To add to this, we’re talking about what people believe about a theory. More often than not that translates into a hodge of podge of beliefs that lend and borrow ideas from various sources.

My personal objection is not really to evolution. Everyone agrees that evolution occurs in varying degrees. One the one hand creationists believe that it is very limited to change within a species, which never results in the branching off of various and new species in a given environment. On the other hand Darwinists believe that evolution is the answer to everything.

What is occurring on either end of this spectrum however is that most folks look for and find evidence to support their particular view, and specifically frame that view upon the implications of the outcome. For example…

Creationists believe in a literal translation of the bible in regards to the creation account because if they didn’t, they feel that it would affect some of the basic tenants of their faith. A very typical response is that Jesus quotes many things that others might question as whether or not they were literal events or not. Since Jesus quotes it, it must be literal. Jonah is a good example, as is the flood.

Evolutionists who are also atheists (specifically I am talking about scientists, whereas with creationists I was talking primarily about theologians), are confined to explaining everything with the underlying principles of the natural laws of the universe (e.g. enough time, random mutation, etc.). Nonetheless, an intelligent designer is not considered, therefore an Intelligent Designer (aka Creator) is off the table.

Intelligent Design on the other hand is not constrained by either of the aforementioned limitations. It is simply an observation that life appears to have many attributes of intelligent design. Young Earth Creation (YEC) to Evolution by Natural Selection (ENS) are confined to the limitations they bring to the table, whereas ID can accept every answer because it is not about presenting a theory, but an observation of appears to be true.

Truth is where I weigh in. Like my signature below, I believe that the truth is what is most important. I really don’t care how it happened to be perfectly honest. All I care about is knowing what happened. I am unwilling to compromise with any world view that I believe to be false or flawed, therefore I look at everything and try my best to know the truth.

I will admit however, that I find ENS particularly troubling in that it is used as a platform by atheists to disprove the existence of God. Ironically, it can’t disprove God though. It can only prove that YECs are wrong. If it could be proved, which it can not.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is the first verse in the bible, and I believe it to be true. Science is a way for us to discover truth, so I naturally embrace every scientific discovery as a means of knowing truth. The problem is that many, if not most, evolutionists are trying to stop the debate. They aren’t interested in any opinion but their own, therefore research into any other idea other than the aforementioned chain of events that natural selection requires in order to be true, is being attacked on the grounds that “it isn’t scientific”. Scientific to these folks means any explanation that boxes out a creator. Hardly a quest for truth. That is a quest to support a belief, and very anti-science because of the narrow and rigid line of reasoning behind it.

Creationists are actually the folks that give me the hardest time personally. I am a born again Christian and they assume that I agree with the YEC camp, and are befuddled with dismay that a born again Christian does not share their view. I am immediately clumped together with liberal Christians or atheists, and it typically goes downhill from there.

I applaud Mr. Stein in keeping this film about academic freedom because academic freedom makes discovering the truth possible. It is only by constraining the debate that we stifle the truth, and this I strenuously oppose.

 

[GenemZ]

If some natural process was found to explain some of the things that I see clearly as the fingerprint of God, it wouldn’t change a thing. We are already in a state where we have been able to explain much more than Darwin would have thought even possible. So much so, that I wonder what he would think had he seen that video. Remember, Darwin thought the smallest factor he was dealing with was the cell. If he knew about DNA, I have to wonder if he would looked at the information stored in it as evidence of intelligent design.

DNA is likened to the computer that controls a car's function, but infinitely more complex. Engineer scientists have safety features built into certain cars that senses a wheel slip so that brakes on individual wheels can be activated, and the spark retarded, as to keep one from losing control.

BUT? That feature lays latent unless certain stimuli causes its activation. Its not evolution. Its already built in. Only activated if needed. Just like God built in effects in design that some call evolution.


Yet, God created a much more complex system for the survival of his creature . What happened (if evolution is true?) in the beginning of a creature's history? Could heart rate accelerate when under attack? Could its body produce a fever as to fight off a disease? From its beginning?

If you think about it. All the essential functions that we mostly take for granted had to be developed almost instantly as to guarantee survival of a creature from its onset. A perfect example of this is the effects of AIDS when certain normal body functions shut down. The person who dies of AIDS does not die from the AIDS virus directly. But from immune system failure, allowing another outside influence to take over and destroy. What happened to the first creatures if the immnune system was not created intact?

One of my favorites to ponder is the following:

Our stomach contains a protective coating that prevents the stomach from digesting itself.
Specific cells produce this coating which are lining the stomach wall. How did they get there first?
Before the digestive juices were activated?

Now? That protective coating had to precede the digestive juices if the creature were to survive! Yet, how could the needed protective coating be first produced with without digested protein at its disposal?

That means? That somehow, a mindless process we call "evolution" had to think ahead, have scientific knowledge, and anticipated a reaction before it took place. For, that protective coating had to precede the process of digestion. If not? The needed substances for miraculously assembling this protective structure had to come from the result of what was extracted from digestion! How could it? It would have self destructed before it could protect itself from what would cause its destruction.

Yet? Evolution is supposed to be a mindless process? One that randomly lucks out as it moves along? I don't buy it for one second. We are too complex for luck to have accomplished what we find in biological life. And, I find the institute of science becoming like the once oppressive church which denied free thought in matters the church refused to be questioned on.

Another one is...

In order for there to be fertilization in male and female reproduction? All male and female processes would have had to be near instantaneous if the creature were to reproduce. Prostate gland? Testes? Ovum? All the required process of blood flow and needed lubrication would have had to been produced within one generation. Or, there would have been only one generation.

I know... I have heard how it was a gradual process and took millions of years. That's nonsense. Its simply too elaborate a system that had to evolve in two vastly different ways (male and female) that for one side to somehow anticipate how the other side was transforming, and at the same time, make the appropriate adaptation to the other. And, with no conscious thought in the process? Impossible.

Its insanity to think male and female reproduction could have just happened by means of a random mindless system. Why, if, the female's PH is not transformed at the time of the reproductive act? The male's sperm would be killed off. And, as if the male somehow knew to have sperm, and the female an ovum.... I find it insane to believe it just could have happened by chance.

The smoke screen against my logic that will come our way is when we are told all the amazing intricacies involved with this biological function. In turn? We are supposed to submit because these folks are obviously more advanced intellectually than we are. Yet? By what the confess, and reveal? They make a case against their very reasoning. For, its vastly too complex to have evolved by chance. Two opposite poles anticipating the others changes? Male and female? The first creature would have had to live to be a million before it could finally reproduce. If it could live to be a million? Why even sense a need to reproduce?

Sadly, too many are blinded by arrogance and pride. For they REFUSE to have no authority over themselves other than their own kind. God is the authority of authority. These ones hate God by denying his hand in the creation. An obviously gigantic hand at that.

That is why I hold little respect for the reasoning capacity of many scientists. I have seen too much corruption and the suppression of truth when dealing with scientific medicine and health. Many sell out to the money producers. Many are sold out to the devil, if they know it or not.


Scientist often times equate their discipline with virtue. Yet, many fall short of that ideal. For example, Nazi Germany had brilliant scientists. Virtue in itself is not a given.

I find that evolutionists still remain emotionally in many ways as children. Ones playing with their engrossing, amusing toys, and take great pride in themselves in their ability to analyze the material world.
For some, their pride in their ability becomes a justification for the hurtful rejections they received from other kids when they were a child. How they did not fit in and were awkward and made fun of or rejected.

One of the reasons for not fitting in? I believe was their early rejection of the drawing of God. Not all do this, of course. But the most anti-biblical types did! And, these ones appear to be the ones who claw their way to the top of the opinion setting.


In Christ, GeneZ




.

 

[Frisbee]

I think you’re being a bit hard on evolutionists Gene. You have to remember and take into consideration that those who are both an evolutionist and an atheist must believe in evolution in order to support the notion of atheism. You can't believe that there is no God unless you come up with an alternative answer than "In the beginning God created". Evolution is the only theory they have to work with. That doesn't make them bad people Gene, it just means that they have a belief system that works for them.

I have, in the past, been extremely ham handed with people who I thought were disrespecting God. When they took off the gloves and said terrible, horrible things about God, Jesus and our faith, I would react in kind. I would win most of the debates, but it was a bad witness so I actually lost all of them when I argued my points in the flesh.

This reminds of that scene in Fiddler on the Roof when they just found they were going to be forced from homes...

Villager: We should defend ourselves! An eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth!
Tevye: Very Good. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless.

I love that movie!

The point is that as Christians we have to learn, with the emphasis on "we" and "learn", how to defend the faith with meekness. I'm told that meekness is not weakness, but strength under control.

Something to think about!

I know that God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, so the details really don't matter to me. Scientists, even neo-Darwinian evolutionist scientists, admit that there are only two possible answers for how it all began:

1) All the matter in universe was in a singularity that existed for eternity until something caused it to spring into life! Evolutionists are challenged with explaining the unexplainable with out God.

2) All the matter in the universe literally popped into existence out of nowhere. Again, evolutionists can not answer how this happened and never will be able to. It is an knowable question because it occurred before time began.

I personally believe that we can skip the debate on the details because how God did it wont change the minds of a person who has to believe that natural process account for everything. On the other hand, now I sound like Tevye, nobody can explain the 2 points I brought up about first cause. Neither the theologian nor the atheist evolutionist. Neither. However the theist can rest comfortably in the opening shot of God’s word… “In the beginning God created”, whereas the atheist evolutionist is left hanging in the agony of self doubt and to rely on the one thing they have spent a lifetime running away from… they must believe in something purely on faith!

 

[GenemZ]

I think you’re being a bit hard on evolutionists Gene. You have to remember and take into consideration that those who are both an evolutionist and an atheist must believe in evolution in order to support the notion of atheism.

Why? Atheists before TOE had no problem being Atheists. They just did not like the public scorn. They love TOR because TOE is their means to gain the ascendancy over believers, and now to ridicule them. There's the rub.

You can't believe that there is no God unless you come up with an alternative answer than "In the beginning God created".

Not so!

If that were true?

"The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
​

That passage could not have been penned at that time. For when it was written? All men were told was that God created. Darwinism was no option.

It did not stop anyone from being an Atheists then.

What you fail to see, is that TOE is an offensive weapon that Satan has devised over time to give people who like his style leverage over believers of the Bible. Face it. That's what it is.

Evolution is the only theory they have to work with. That doesn't make them bad people Gene, it just means that they have a belief system that works for them.

Atheism is good? Not evil?

You're right. Its just another alternative think style. Right? Its all relative? After all. There really is no God. We just choose to believe there is a God. Right? (that's what your words are telling me, as far as what they hear).

I have, in the past, been extremely ham handed with people who I thought were disrespecting God. When they took off the gloves and said terrible, horrible things about God, Jesus and our faith, I would react in kind. I would win most of the debates, but it was a bad witness so I actually lost all of them when I argued my points in the flesh.

You really think you can win anyone to Christ by being pleasant? That God depends on our personality to win the lost? That if you give a bad witness? They will end up going to hell, and its all your fault?

NOT SO!


All we can do as the Lord's servants is to study to show ourselves approved. In doing so, to not allow for the lies to stand in comfort. To present the truth.. and then leave them to God!

Did you know? If we glorify Christ? Others may never believe?

Jesus was the greatest witness to walk the earth, and many rejected his witness. He was not always nice about it either. He ruffled feathers where ever he went with those in opposition to the truth.

All we can do? If we glorify Christ?

Leave them without excuse for continuing in their lie! That does not mean they will be left unable to resist the truth. For, God does not over ride free will.

Yes... we may do so in a loving fashion (relaxed mental attitude towards them). But, love is not to be confused with our open approval. You seem to have blurred the lines of the two, maybe?

Loving ones enemies does not mean openly approving of them. It means to have the power (grace) to maintain a relaxed attitude in their presence. Not to become reactionary when they are negative.. But, to remain on a straight course in presenting the Truth. Then? Leaving them to God. Even if they show hatred towards you.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (New International Version)
"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."


​

The point is that as Christians we have to learn, with the emphasis on "we" and "learn", how to defend the faith with meekness. I'm told that meekness is not weakness, but strength under control.

Something to think about!

You want meekness? Here's meekness. Here is something to think about!

Acts 6:8-10 (New International Version)
"Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia. These men began to argue with Stephen, but they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke."
​

Now! That's meekness!

Like Moses was called the meekest man on earth, by the Lord. Yet? Moses ground up the golden calf and forced all the rebels drink its powder in water. Meek he was!

Go learn the true meaning of "meek." We are to be meek before God. Not men. I think you have it backwards. This is a debate situation. Not one where you are teaching a congregation. Then we are to be gentle before all when teaching as in a classroom.

Now... lets take a look once more at Stephen who was full of grace, power, and wisdom.

Lets watch him win over the enemies of God with "understanding their plight". No ham fisted guy, was he! Meekness in the truest sense was pouring out of his soul!


(I would suggest reading all of Acts chapter 7, I am about to quote from. It shows Stephen's meekness in action.)

"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears!


You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."​

The Stoning of Stephen.

When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him.

But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep."
​

Sometimes it takes getting slaughtered for presenting the Truth in meekness, so that someone who is witnessing to the attack upon his cherished lie, will later on be converted by the Spirit, and become the Atheists worst nightmare. Which is? One who was the staunchest Atheist of the herd mentality.

Like Paul was the staunchest unbelieving Jew of all the Jews hating Christ.


Stephen was meek before God because he did not become timid and shrink back. That's meekness!

And, even though he called those unbelievers terrible things, he still prayed that their sin would not be held against them. That's love! Not simply getting along and being nice.


And, later on? God saved some who heard him. At the time? It seemed that Stephen was being possibly carnal and reactionary. Ham fisted. And, just look at their reaction! Could that have been God's desired outcome? YES!

Know the Word, and you will not get in the Spirit's way when he wants to use you. For, there is a time to every season under Heaven. A time for gentleness, and a time for being blunt and straightforward.

If you do not have what it takes to be blunt and straightforward? Get out of the way of those who do. For we are all different functioning parts of the same body. Not all have been called to be like Stephen, nor Paul. Some are called to be like gentle Timothy. Like gentle loving John.

Who knows? Maybe you were to stop being ham fisted because your actions were based upon emotional reaction, without knowledge and truth? But, just maybe? Something wanted to retard your spiritual growth? Wanted you to desist from what the Spirit would have you to do under certain circumstances. I can't say. We are told to judge ourselves. I am only saying what I am because you appeared to have been judging me.

With that in mind...


Wishing you a nice Day, GeneZ



.