Comments for: “Two (Opposable) Thumbs Down: Skip Ben Stein’s Movie And Check Out ‘Expelled: Exposed’ Instead”

I could be all wet, since I pay little attention to movies or movie criticism (that darn ADHD, ya know), but aren’t even the hated Michael Moore movies made available to pre-release criticism?

If yes, this puts this particular piece of RR crap beneath even their own hated Michael Moore.

There is another as yet unmentioned design hypothesis anyway: Unintelligent Design.

Design does not require high intelligence. Take a spider’s web, the kind with the intricate geometry and the concentric polygons. Or take a bird’s nest. Both are designed, and both have features and faults.

To plead the case for Unintelligent Design, look no farther than the human mouth, so often beset with poor alignment and faulty third molars that physical modifications are needed to keep us living past age 30 — lest we contract a fatal infection or become unable to eat. Long ago, the mouth was a major entry point for fatal infections, and the fallout and health ramifications of less-than-perfect oral health are being redisovered today.

The more you study the human mouth, the less conceivable the theory of Intelligent Design.

The movie is embroiled in controversy of its own making.

It has been shown to have lifted copyrighted materials in its animations and using music without permission. Its producers and supporters are chugging away at lame excuses of why this is so, even to the point of claiming further martyrdom for their efforts ’cause they’re being attacked by the science establishment.

They are a pathetic group.

As usual, all roads lead to the RR’s key axiom: sex is dirty. All of science much be brought to follow that axiom.

From the so-called Wedge Document:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

“The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology….”

“Governing Goals:

“To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies….”

“Five Year Objectives:”

“2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)…”

“5. … Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God.”

The entirety of their motives can be traced to one thing: an obsession with the adventures of thy neighbor’s genitals.

Good grief, Davids everywhere!

After reading the “Exposed” web site (another great job by NCSE) it seems like the featured “ID martyrs” are a bunch of oversensitive whiners and complainers suffering from the typical exagerated persecution complex.

My favorite ID whine from the expose:

The Claim: Michael Egnor says in Expelled that he expected criticism, but was shocked by the “viciousness” and “baseness” of the response.

The Facts: Michael Egnor had apparently never been on the Internet before.

David,

I think it is all about sex, especially other people having it. The AFA is currently spearheading a drive to force the Marriott to no longer pay-per-view porn in the hotel rooms. I don’t know why they would care unless they were maybe in some way neurotically and obsessively compelled to pry into the sexual activities of others.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Cult.....x?id=75369

I’m a frequent Marriott “tenant,” and I vow to pay for some room porn on our next stay, just to spite the AFA.

(BTW, as a frequent Marriott guest, I’ll certify that Marriott gives everyone the option to block porn from their rooms. The AFA surely knows this. This isn’t about “protecting children” — it’s about meddling with adults. Most everyone with a brain knows this.)

I think it’s amusing that while they were throwing out PZ Meyers, they completely missed Richard Dawkins, who was right there in line with him.

Here’s Dawkins’ and Meyers’ take on it.

It really shouldn’t amaze me, but it still does when the RR makes such ridiculous blunders as to hijack an artist’s song without permission and then try to weasel their way out of it. I haven’t read all of the ExpelledExposed site, but I’m looking forward to seeing more foolishness on the part of the RR.

If I’ve been just a moderately active participant in the effort to keep religious belief out of our schools, the military, and the Constitution, I think I may now be considered a full fledged activist.

No PPV porn at the Mariott?? COME ON! What the hell else do I have on these lonely TDYs…

About a decade ago, I ran into a manager of a large Minneapolis hotel, and they offered porn then, and even during an evangelists’ visit, with a hotel full of zealots, he claimed that three quarters of the rooms ordered it.

Sex to the fundies is that of the Haggard Hypocrisy Syndrome. You can almost bet on the fact that those who preach the loudest against it are those actively “ensnared” in it.

Ben Stein’s movie will fall flat, it’s BS exposed, and this fight will continue. I do not believe though that momentum is on the RR side in this culture.

Somewhat relevant to the nation’s sex obsession: Tim Robbins gave an excellent speech on journalism in America. Witty, sarcastic, and yet pointed. Here’s the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....96836.html

Yikes. I knew “Expelled” would score some bad reviews, but it’s a slaughterhouse over at Rotten Tomatoes…

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/.....e_allowed/

And things just keep getting better and better. Apparently, the cretins behind “Expelled” used 25 seconds of John Lennon’s “Imagine”…… without permission.

http://www.pastemagazine.com/a.....say_please

What was that commandment again…. something about stealing? Wait… it’ll come to me….

Here’s another tidbit of hilarity- the makers of “Expelled” admit why theistic evolutionary scientists were not interviewed for the movie: Scientists who were Christian would have “confused the film unnecessarily”.

In other words, those Scientist’s thruth would have interfered with “Expelled’s” lies.

http://pandasthumb.org/archive.....d-why.html

FYI, the wife and I are off to a night in a suite room at Marriott to celebrate our 19th, and we’re going to order the pay-porn just to stiff the AFA.

The movie was well done! I have a difficult time with all the critics who are trying to expose this movie before even seeing it. Not a good sign for the critics. The problem is that history can not be rewritten, and Hitler was a fan of Natural Selection and Darwin failed to give an adequate explanation for creation.

Greg,
I’ve rarely seen someone get so much wrong in such a short paragraph! Well done!

What this article (and the Expelled Exposed website) is seeking to call attention to are the misconceptions and outright lies in the movie itself, and the deceptive and dishonest tactics of the filmmakers while making it. Why don’t you take a look at Expelled Exposed and see what it says for yourself? You’re not afraid it might contradict your views, are you? Why do you object to a website giving information you haven’t even read for yourself?

Greg, if you don’t mind, would you please answer a few questions for me?

Does “Expelled” discuss and or explain what sort of positive scientific benefits Intelligent Design “theory” and its proponents would make?

Does “Expelled” explain why we should consider Intelligent Design “theory” an alternative explanation to how the diversity and forms of life got the way they are and were, even though absolutely none of its proponents have ever demonstrated an interest in explaining anything with Intelligent Design “theory”?

Does “Expelled” explain how Charles Darwin was able to simultaneously inspire both Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin to become genocidal monsters, even though evidence suggests that neither of them so much as touched any of Charles Darwin’s works (translated or otherwise)?

And even if somehow it could be shown that Hitler’s atrocities WERE inspired by Charles Darwin, do you think that makes Modern Evolutionary Theory scientifically incorrect?

You are really getting desperate when the only argument you can come up with is to compare your opponent to Hitler. The “Reductio ad Hitlerium” is basically the end of the rhetorical rope.

The most telling point is the one you made, Rick, that the movie does not introduce Christians and other religious scientists who find no conflict between their faith and scientific knowledge. This movie is extremist, over-the-top propaganda.

This film is one more tired attempt on the part of the RR to give only a tiny and distorted look at a topic that they have made controversial. Yawn.

I’m not sure what Yoko Ono’s options are regarding the use of part of “Imagine”, but I hope she puts the law to its fullest use.

Manufactroversy (măn’yə-făk’-trə-vûr’sē)
N., pl. -sies.

1. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute.
2. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.

http://www.scienceprogress.org/

Greg:

“..Hitler was a fan of Natural Selection….”

The opposite is true … Hitler was clearly a Creationist. His own book, Mein Kampf, which became paradigmatic to Nazism, clearly proves that this was the case …

Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf, wrote:
“Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?”

In repudiation of Expelled’s false premise, it was precisely Hitler’s Christian-based creationism in Mein Kampf that actually justified taking extreme steps against the Jews (ie: extermination) to prevent the “original sin of racial poisoning” (interbreeding between Aryans and Jews) in order to restore humanity to the “Almighty Creator’s” original creation.

I think the reverse of this whole I-think-Hitler-did-bad-things-because-of-
evolution-therefore-evolution-is-wrong-and-
should-be-destroyed argument is rather interesting.
According to this line of “reasoning”, the Inquisition and other atrocities attributed solely to Christianity means Christianity is wrong and evil and should be destroyed. Right?

Anyone? Bueller? I didn’t think so.

The REAL expelled…

http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626

I think it is ironic that all of the posts here reflect exactly the problem with your outlandish theories anyways… you have no proof. If the movie is not open to advance screenings, how can all of you have so much proof of what it does and does not say (albeit from limited press clippings)?

Interesting still, is the obvious slant that you have for evolution and against anything that dares challenge it. By engaging in this discourse you are illustrating Stein’s point with the penultimate clarity. You expect others to accept your positions, yet you have no tolerance for any others.

In discussing intelligent design (and especially the spider web reference), yes, it may be a matter of faith. However, don’t you have to have an equal amount of faith to believe in the theory of evolution? After all, you have no proof that it is undeniable fact either… If you did, then you could answer the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Seems a pretty reasonable thing to be able to answer if your positions are true.

And finally, there is no separation between church and state written into the Constitution as interpreted by SC judges. The US government does not endorse or require its citizens to engage in a particular religion and has made no laws as such. You can practice any religion freely in the US so long as you are not breaking any criminal laws. One day this fallacy will be reviewed and hopefully corrected, even over the protest of secular nonsense.

I’m sure you will now begin posting that I’m only parroting the “right-wing” talking points, and a blind follower of the RR agenda too. A specious argument, but I’m sure it will come. Good day.

RW, please read the website ExpelledExposed for detailed information explaining why this film does not tell the whole story about its topic. This is not just a collection of “limited press clippings”.

ID has been examined and it has been found lacking from a scientific perspective. This has been ruled on in a court of law. Evolution, on the contrary, is supported by a convergence of data from several scientific fields. No scientific theory can be called “undeniable fact”, as any scientist will tell you. Perhaps you should become more familiar with what a scientific theory actually is before you assume it is based on faith.

You’re nicer than I’m about to be, Jax…

That 0.00000001% chance that evolution isn’t true is all the sliver of hope they need to pretend it isn’t. And whine “bias” as a means of excusing themselves from heeding the evidence, to wit:

“Interesting still, is the obvious slant that you have for evolution and against anything that dares challenge it.”

And on to this:

“If you did, then you could answer the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Seems a pretty reasonable thing to be able to answer if your positions are true.”

The egg.

But since we’re asking stupid questions, can God make a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?

Should be a simple question to answer, eh? come on, answer it.

“I’m sure you will now begin posting that I’m only parroting the “right-wing” talking points, and a blind follower of the RR agenda too.”

If I were a cop, I’d take that as a confession.

Otherwise, why would you inject this tripe…:

“And finally, there is no separation between church and state written into the Constitution as interpreted by SC judges.”

…into a topic that isn’t dealing with separation of church and state?

Unless, of course, you were itching for a chance to zing in a bubble-headed talking point.

Looks like a confession to me.

RW is just the usual drive-by. Pay him no mind. All the rational and science blogs are experiencing a surge in stupid this weekend. Seems some little propaganda piece hit their local theaters.

And, by the way, it’s bombing.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

I was just about to post that Rick. Panda’s Thumb has the scoop, too.

“While the weekend has just started the movie will have to do some hard work to match the expectations of the PR people:

“He said they would consider the opening weekend successful if the movie sold 2 million tickets (earning $12-15 million).”

Guess, they’ve got a ways to go to consider themselves “successful.”

Yeah, the movie already claims “Big Science” is to blame for keeping ID down. And they already blame “Big Media” for all the bad reviews (seriously. Even the FOX news pan.)
What next? A conspiracy by “Big Box Office”?

Yeah, that’s a pretty anemic turnout when you consider the awesomely powerful propaganda machines of their own in big media.

All that incredible media horsepower they have, and that’s all they could scare up?

RE: Most Americans understand that religion and science need not fight. The former is based on faith; the latter never can be. It is certainly possible to accept evolution and be a believing Christian.

? What? This and David’s theory about the mouth speaks more that some here know little about Christianity so I am not so sure they will convince anyone but their own choirs.
But please invite me to the lab when you recreate the science of Darwin.

I know, all the imperfections, faults, and stupidities in our “intelligent” design are the result of “sin entering the world.”

What a maroon.

Why are you bashing a movie that you admit you haven’t seen ?

Because it’s a DOCUMENTARY (propaganda piece), not a suspense thriller. The claims and content of the movie have been well known on the internet for months. As have the deceitful production and marketing practices of the filmmakers. No surprises.

Try looking around a bit at Expelledexposed.com. It will help your confusion.

Thom wrote- “But please invite me to the lab when you recreate the science of Darwin.”

You may find yourself involved in an experiment directly, if you come down with one of those nasty bacterial infections that don’t respong to antibiotics anymore.

Because they evolved.

“respong” should be “respond”.

Even words evolve.

And in my comment at 2:24, the “they evolved” refers to the bacteria, NOT the antibiotics.

I have not seen the movie yet either, but I’ll wait to write MY review until after i do. I guess the secret is out now on how you feel about Christianity. Since you probably have not read the Bible either, maybe you could give us a review based on what your friends in the Atheist Club have to say?

I have read the bible, Jim. Do you have something of substance to contribute?

Two of the biggest lies of the movie are that evolution=atheism and that evolution is in direct conflict with Christianity Both false.

There are loads of evolutionary biologists who are theists. There are many, many more theists who have no problem with evolution.

The real conflict here is mainsteam, rational interpretations of the bible vs. extreme fundamentalist (anti-science) views.

I have never heard any opponent of evolution frame the debate in such honest terms. They know they will get creamed. There is a lot of evidence behind evolution. But there is no evidence to support a literalist interprtation of the bible. And they can’t even demonize their opponents (who are bona fide Christians, not atheists).

Dave C- Exactly. This is all part of Phase II of the wedge strategy. In Philip Johnson’s words:

“”The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’”

And as it has been pointed out, scientists who are theists in general, and christians in particular, are an inconvenient annoyance for them.

There are 3 parts to the wedge strategy-

* Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity,
* Phase II: Publicity & Opinion-making, and
* Phase III: Cultural Confrontation & Renewal.

But having skipped right past Phase I entirely (we’re still waiting for research, or a stated theory even), I’m not sure how this is going to work out for them.

At laeast all these drive-by haters are admitting that this is really about their version of fundamentalist Christianity.

So much for the cover story that it’s just a nameless designer hypothesis.

True Christianity is grand. You can spot it by its fruits:

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa.....version=31

And is so doing, it helps the believer identify the mindless haters who hide behind its name but never will exhibit its fruits.

Like these people.

As for bashing movies we haven’t seen, I not only have seen, but have in my possession, movies and so-called documentaries of the same nature.

I used to be an evangelical. You oughta see my bookshelf and video selection. Most of it is crap.

There was one — just one — creation/evolution video that I found in the Christian bookstore that actually tried to be honest:

It presented four points of view, not just two. It had a young-earth creationist, a pure secular evolutionist, and two shades of Christian evolutionist.

And it portrayed all views fairly.

All the rest were obvious lies.

Reading through the Wikipedia article on the ID movement, I came across 2 quotes from major players in the ID movement.

From Philip Johnson: So did God create us? Or did we create God? That’s an issue that unites people across the theistic world. Even religious, God-believing Jewish people will say, “That’s an issue we really have a stake in, so let’s debate that question first. Let us settle that question first. THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES ON WHICH WE MAY NOT AGREE, AND WE’LL HAVE A WONDERFUL TIME DISCUSSING THOSE QUESTIONS AFTER WE’VE SETTLED THE FIRST ONE. WE WILL APPROACH THOSE QUESTIONS IN A BETTER SPIRIT BECAUSE WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER FOR THIS IMPORTANT COMMON END.”

And from Paul Nelson, former senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, talking about the “Big Tent” strategy of uniting YEC’s and OEC’s with the ID movement:

“THE PROMISE OF THE BIG TENT OF ID IS TO PROVIDE A SETTING WHERE CHRISTIANS AND OTHERS MAY DISAGREE AMICABLY AND FRUITFULLY ABOUT HOW BEST TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURAL WORLD AS WELL AS SCRIPTURE.”

Whoa. Do those quotes strike anyone else as optimistic to the point of delusional? Christians (and others) uniting to agree on scripture? Disagreeing “amicably and fruitfully”? They’ll have a “wonderful time” discussing the details of scriptural disagreements?

Have these IDiots NEVER opened a history book?

And they claim “Darwinists” are deluded.

WHOA.

(Sorry about the caps. I want to italicize quotes but I don’t know how….)

“Whoa. Do those quotes strike anyone else as optimistic to the point of delusional? Christians (and others) uniting to agree on scripture? Disagreeing “amicably and fruitfully”? They’ll have a “wonderful time” discussing the details of scriptural disagreements?”

Just wait until the fundies (and I mean the term literally, not as a slur) start complaining about being “unequally yoked” and begin railing about the danger of “harmony between Christ and Belial.”

(Yeah, see, I still know the lingo.)

In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
Any question???
It’s all there. Read it.

Brilliant, Mr. Moore.

http://library.thinkquest.org/.....orubaC.htm

“Yoruba Creation Myth

The Yoruba of Nigeria believed that in the beginning, there was nothing but a great, silent ocean that reached the heavens. Above the ocean, the Great God, Chief of Heaven, sat and thought. Finally, the Great God reached into himself and brought out a son named Odudua.

He ordered his son to go down to the ocean and place a world upon it. Odudua fastened a chain to heaven and let it hang down so that the tip touched the seas. Carrying a bow of sand and a chicken, Odudua climbed down the chain. He poured the sand out of the bowl and into the water.

Miraculously, it did not sink but instead made a pile upon the water. Odudua then placed the chicken on the pile of sand. It began to scratch the sand with its feet, spreading the sand out of the water. Odudua then covered the sand with trees and grass, creating the world.

Odudua then brought down the Yoruba people from heaven and built the city of Ife for them to live in. He ruled over them as their king. In time, his children became the kings and queens of all the towns and villages of Yorubaland.”

_

It’s all there. Read it.

Brilliant, just brilliant.

http://library.thinkquest.org/.....orubaC.htm

Ckick the link. It’s all there. Read it.

Brilliant, just brilliant.

http://library.thinkquest.org/.....orubaC.htm

It’s all there. Click the link. Read it.

And another drive-by. Gary, give the 21st century a try. It’s not at all bad!

For the UMPTEENTH time, Wordpress:

____________

Brilliant, GaryZ, just brilliant.

It’s all here, read it:

“Yoruba Creation Myth

The Yoruba of Nigeria believed that in the beginning, there was nothing but a great, silent ocean that reached the heavens. Above the ocean, the Great God, Chief of Heaven, sat and thought. Finally, the Great God reached into himself and brought out a son named Odudua.

He ordered his son to go down to the ocean and place a world upon it. Odudua fastened a chain to heaven and let it hang down so that the tip touched the seas. Carrying a bow of sand and a chicken, Odudua climbed down the chain. He poured the sand out of the bowl and into the water.

Miraculously, it did not sink but instead made a pile upon the water. Odudua then placed the chicken on the pile of sand. It began to scratch the sand with its feet, spreading the sand out of the water. Odudua then covered the sand with trees and grass, creating the world.

Odudua then brought down the Yoruba people from heaven and built the city of Ife for them to live in. He ruled over them as their king. In time, his children became the kings and queens of all the towns and villages of Yorubaland.”

Last time I looked I was in the 21st century.
I also know that the bible hasn’t changed at all since it was written.
The creation account is the same now as it was then.
Evolution is a “theory”
The bible, on the other hand, is directly inspired by by God himself. It was penned over a period of 2000 years by individuals like kings,physicians, tax collectors, farmers, fishermen, singers, and shepherds. It is quite amazing that a diverse group of people such as this could create a library that is so perfectly cohesive. Coincidence?? I respectfully say, I don’t think so.

In other words, we learned something since the stone age. Too bad the Bible didn’t.

And if you think the Bible hasn’t changed at all, you know precious little about early church history.

Google “Comma Johanneum” sometime.

Rick R. check this link: http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/

To italicize, you use your less than, greater than keyboard symbols. At the start of the desired quote use less than, followed by lower case i, and then greater than symbol. At the end of the quote, you need to break the italic. Use less than symbol, then slash, then the lower case i, and then the greater than symbol.
For a bold print it is the same, only a ‘b’ in place of the i.
Good luck.

Gary Z - highly suspect is the motive of the “greats” who chose to eliminate select books in putting together the Bible. Makes one wonder what we’d be reading if the higher church authorities weren’t so bent on censoring some things, and if that isn’t going to make God angry in the end. Ya think?

“Perfectly cohesive book,” Alb… I love it when someone comes in here with that Josh McDowell tripe. I can kick that stuff between the goalposts, wherever in the world you may choose to erect those goalposts.

Look at the Pentecost in the book of Acts, and then look at how it doesn’t even fit the prophecies of Joel that it claims to fulfill. Joel’s in the same Bible, but if you read Joel, you’ll have a hard time believing that he’s even talking about the same thing.

Even if it were perfectly cohesive, it doesn’t mean diddly — it would only mean they were reading off the same tradition.

Heck, a million kids who tell an amazingly cohesive account of Santa Claus can’t be wrong…. can they?

Nice try,but you are talking about men medaling with divinely inspired scripture.
You can’t mess with God’s word. It has survived this long and will continue until the end.

“Nice try,but you are talking about men medaling with divinely inspired scripture.
You can’t mess with God’s word. It has survived this long and will continue until the end.”

So you claim. Have you any proof your scripture is divinely inspired? The Muslims say that their religious text is divinely inspired, as do the Mormons and other faiths. Can you prove that your faith is right whereas all others are wrong?

If you only have hearsay to offer, please don’t waste your time.

Gary Z,

Which god’s word(s) are you referring to?

There are so many (gods and words) and they all regularly contradict each other. Seems like gods (with all their self-proclaimed omnipotence) could be a little more consistent and at least get their stories straight before they go public (inspiring divinely) and wind up contradicting themselves at almost every turn?

Jimmy, you are correct. There are many gods (small g). There is only one God(Capital G).
The contradiction thing has been tried many , many times in the past. It just doesn’t hold water.

Then surely you can shoot mine down, eh?

Acts 1 vs. Joel. The outpouring of the Spirit was, according to Joel, supposed to come AFTER Israel found its restoration and internal peace. Actually READ Joel.

Since Israel has hardly been a land of eternal peace since Acts 1, me thinks Joel hasn’t been fulfilled at all, but rather had been poorly hijacked by Luke.

Come on, explain that. Make my day.

You won’t. You’ll just blow off anything that upsets your little virtual reality.

While you’re at it, compare and contrast John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 — “no one has ever seen God” — with Exodus 33:10-12, Numbers 14:13-15, 2 Chron 18:18 (people seeing the Lord face to face).

Come on, explain that.

Yeah, you’ll blow it off, just like everything else I’ll wallop you with.

Gary Z,

The god you are referring to capitalizes it’s name?

So does Zeus among many others. What does capitalizing the god’s name prove beyond that it’s a name?

“AFTER Israel found its restoration and internal peace. Actually READ Joel.”

Me and my totally meaning-inverting typoes. You guys know by now that these are absolutely inevitable…:

“AFTER Israel found its restoration and ETERNAL peace. Actually READ Joel.”

David,

If he’s smart, Gary Z. will explain that an omnipotent god like his can contradict itself ad infinitum and still be 100% right! You see, turning logic on it’s head is pretty easy business (and evidently standard operating procedure) for truely omnipotent gods.

Gary Z-

What does this have to do with evolution? Plenty of intelligent people who accept the bible as inspired word of God also think evolution is fine.

It is mainly the *literalist interpretations* of the bible that run into trouble with evolution. But why should someone believe those interpretations? Such interpretations are not implied by the scripture itself and, in effect, imply an additional article of faith not stated in the biblical teachings themselves.

Given the strong evidence for evolution and the dearth of evidence for literalist interpretations, evolution+mainstream Christianity is the better choice.

Also, those internal contradictions are such a nasty issue for literalism and a non-issue otherwise (as David has posted about). Which Genesis account should be taken literally?

I have long said that the best insights to be gleaned from Genesis arise not from the literal story, but from the underlying metaphors.

Jesus reportedly spoke in parables; where is the requirement that the Genesis creation account not be read as a parable, too?

I’m happy that Dave C has remembered that atacking people’s Christian faith really isn’t my style. I’ll sooner steer someone from an unhealthy variety of Christianity to a healthy one, before I’d attempt to erase their faith altogether. I really have nothing to gain by doing that.

But if someone keeps egging me on — such as the recent spate of drive-by haters come charing out the movie house doors last week — I’ll sooner or later take the gloves off.

Thanks, David.

I think too many of these creationists want to go around battling atheists. They want to frame the debate that way - God vs. Darwin. But that’s the wrong frame. I think the way to combat this is

1) refute their reasoning
2) go after their interpretation of the bible (their Achilles’ heel)
3) offer a Christian alternative (if your beliefs so incline)

I have found that those people who see no theological difficulties with evolution simply don’t care much about it.

David says:

Then surely you can shoot mine down, eh?

Acts 1 vs. Joel. The outpouring of the Spirit was, according to Joel, supposed to come AFTER Israel found its restoration and internal peace. Actually READ Joel.

Since Israel has hardly been a land of eternal peace since Acts 1, me thinks Joel hasn’t been fulfilled at all, but rather had been poorly hijacked by Luke.

Come on, explain that. Make my day.

You won’t. You’ll just blow off anything that upsets your little virtual reality.

Sorry David but you should probably go back and read it yourself. You see chapter 2 and chapter 3 talk about 2 different events.

Joel 2:25-29
25 “Then I will make up to you for the years
That the swarming locust has eaten,
The creeping locust, the stripping locust and the gnawing locust,
My great army which I sent among you.
26 “You will have plenty to eat and be satisfied
And praise the name of the LORD your God,
Who has dealt wondrously with you;
Then My people will never be put to shame.
27 “Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel,
And that I am the LORD your God,
And there is no other;
And My people will never be put to shame.

The Promise of the Spirit

28 “It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
29 “Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

NASU

Chapter 3 talks about the coming of the Lord and his judgment.
I know the story!!

Joel 3:1-3
Joel 3

3:1 The Nations Will Be Judged

“For behold, in those days and at that time,
When I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem,
2 I will gather all the nations
And bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat.
Then I will enter into judgment with them there
On behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel,
Whom they have scattered among the nations;
And they have divided up My land.
3 “They have also cast lots for My people,
Traded a boy for a harlot
And sold a girl for wine that they may drink.
NASU

Acts chapter 2 IS the fulfillment of the prophesy

You see Dave,the bible can’t contradict itself. It was written by God himself. He is perfect therefore he can’t be contradicted.
Anyways, I want to thank you for letting me do some research here. My time here has been very enlightening. I just wanted to confirm my hunches.
I will say this in parting. If we spend less time trying to disprove God and trying to “separate” Him from government, then we will most assuredly be all the better for it.
Your way has been tried for along, long time and look where we are. School shootings, bombings teen sex,etc.
Our government has no moral values. We worry about offending sin and stifle moral absolutes.
Maybe, just maybe we are doing it the wrong way????

Nice try yourself.

You missed Joel 2:18-24. Here’s the whole thing in context:

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa.....version=31;

“18 Then the LORD will be jealous for his land
and take pity on his people.
19 The LORD will reply [a] to them:
“I am sending you grain, new wine and oil,
enough to satisfy you fully;
never again will I make you
an object of scorn to the nations.

20 “I will drive the northern army far from you,
pushing it into a parched and barren land,
with its front columns going into the eastern sea [b]
and those in the rear into the western sea. [c]
And its stench will go up;
its smell will rise.”
Surely he has done great things. [d]

21 Be not afraid, O land;
be glad and rejoice.
Surely the LORD has done great things.

22 Be not afraid, O wild animals,
for the open pastures are becoming green.
The trees are bearing their fruit;
the fig tree and the vine yield their riches.

23 Be glad, O people of Zion,
rejoice in the LORD your God,
for he has given you
the autumn rains in righteousness. [e]
He sends you abundant showers,
both autumn and spring rains, as before.

24 The threshing floors will be filled with grain;
the vats will overflow with new wine and oil.

25 “I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten—
the great locust and the young locust,
the other locusts and the locust swarm [f]—
my great army that I sent among you.

26 You will have plenty to eat, until you are full,
and you will praise the name of the LORD your God,
who has worked wonders for you;
never again will my people be shamed.

27 Then you will know that I am in Israel,
that I am the LORD your God,
and that there is no other;
never again will my people be shamed.

The Day of the LORD
28 “And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.”

Notice how Joel 2:28 says, “And AFTERWARD.”

AFTERWARD.

You lose.

Again, David nice try.
God likens the locust to an army.
You do lose.

Nope. You absolutely cannot get around the AFTERWARD the separates “never again will my people be shamed” from the Pentecost (verse 28).

AFTERWARD.

Peace and plenty. THEN the Pentecost.

David, The AFTERWARD refers to the punishment of the Jews and the coming of the Lord Jesus.

Blessings

That’s not what the Bible says.

But I’ll leave that to the readers.

The logical consistency of a biblical interpretation must withstand two tests:

1. It must be self-consistent. The interpretation cannot have contradictions within itself.

2. The interpretation must be broadly consistent with what we know of the world through means other than the bible or divine revelation.

Biblical literalism fails both tests.

While I am not up on my Joel prophecies (the seeing God one is legit, and there are plenty), I know something of Genesis. There are two creation accounts and they disagree on the order of the things created. This is not a trivial detail; from a scientific perspective, the order is really important.

Second, biblical literalism makes falsifiable claims that are in fact falsified by evidence (ex: the Earth is much older than 6000 years, heaven has no pillars supporting it). Therefore, it is inconsistent with what we know about the world.

just saw Expelled, Ben Stein’s goal in making Expelled (i gather) is to promote free thought, especially more thinking about motivations that drive American academia and a lot of other behind-the-scenes worldview that we tend to take for granted.

There is precious little that “we” take for granted about the desire to insert creationism into the public school classrooms.

“Most Americans understand that religion and science need not fight. The former is based on faith; the latter never can be.”

This is an excerpt from the last paragraph of the article all these comments belong to (obviously). Food for thought. Darwin himself said that his entire theory could be undone if the Cambrian Explosion could not be explained. That was roughly 150 years ago. The Cambrian Explosion still cannot be explained. It does seem to put a decent kink into evolution.

From Richard Dawkins A Devil’s Chaplain, 5.4 Human Chauvinism and Evolutionary Progress:

“As it happens, molecular clock evidence indicates that the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ may never have happened. Far from the major phyla diverging from a point at the beginning of the Cambrian, Wray, Leviton and Shapiro present evidence that the common ancestors of the major phyla are staggered through hundreds of millions of years back in the Precambrian…Even if there really was a Cambrian explosion such that all the major phyla diverged during a ten million-year period, this is no reason to think that Cambrian evolution was a qualitatively special kind of super-jumpy process.”