This Here...I recently found out that Ben Stein has a movie coming out in February on the Darwinian captivity of the sciences (as I call it). In other words it is about how you can't question Darwinism without loosing repute and well in many cases your job. It seems to me that it is fairly clear that there is a conscious suppression of anything that would challenge the frankly Atheistic presuppositions in the sciences, and that simply is NOT science. Science is supposed to be about free thought not suppressing ideas and theories because they don't fit one's God rejecting philosophy. It's high time that some of the sacred cows that have been erected by godless secularists and Atheists receive a thorough challenge.
To be fair, I don't have great hopes for this documentary. My main concern is that it isn't a Michael Moore style ambush journalism where they will in freeze frame zoom in on a rather dumb looking face Richard Dawkins has made upon cringing at a difficult question while having some smearing monologue going as the stupid look on Dawkins' face gets bigger. That's the way most documentaries go nowadays, I can't remember the last really well researched one I have seen...The Trouble with Atheism was ok, (Never mind the poor star ratings on Youtube, it is a decent documentary).
At anyrate even though I reject evolution theory (at least macro) and I agree that the sciences are called upon to just matter of fact (a word science has no right to use but Darwinists use it all the time in regards to their theory) assume Darwinism, my concern is simply giving a good representation and not just having a smear campaign. Honestly, that is hard to do in an hour and a half, that is why the slapdash Michael Moore approach is so popular. So I hope it is a good film and opens people's eyes to the role of science.
(***All I know is that Ben is going to get hammered by the evolutionists [not necessarily intellectually but through personal attacks which are already gushing forth] so he better make this movie worth it and count the cost.***)
13 comments:
Hi Bob,
Good to see you blogging again.
Is Ben a Christian?
The movie looks interesting. I don't know if he'll be taken seriously. We'll see.
We really need Spielberg or Lucas to convert so they can start making Christian movies. Mel Gibson & Anne Rice haven't delivered much lately.
I don't believe Ben Stein is a Christian. He's a conservative Jew who writes for the magazine, The American Spectator.
Bob, I'm with you in hoping that the documentary is carefully-reasoned and modest in its goals. Evolution is way too entrenched to be unseated by a creationist stump speech. If it can convince lay people that science should be open to follow the evidence wherever it leads and not arbitrarily exclude possible explanations that it doesn't like, that would be a good first step.
Hey guys, I don't think Ben Stein is a Christian, although when I read one of his articles he did call the Christian message "the gospel". I added that last ***'ed comment after seeing some of the responses to this movie coming form Darwinists already. Most of them are pretty andgry and letting the personal attacks fly already.
In all reality such a response seems to me to only validate the argument being made by Ben. If these fellows really were approaching this matter scientifically they would hear the matter before making a judgement, not to mention they wouldn't hold to Darwinism with such tenaciousness. No theory has the status of "fact" in natural science, that is the nature of science it is tenative and supposedly open for rival theories.
All that to say this: I do not think it is a mere coincidence that the fiercest defenders of Darwinism are equally militant Atheists.
Bob, you're right about theories not having that status of fact in natural science, but some theories are have been so thoroughly tested that they've been elevated to scientific law, like gravity. (Hugh Ross also points out that Einstein's theory of relativity is one of the most tested in all of science and could at this point be called the law of relativity).
Evolutionists obviously want the theory of evolution to be elevated the law of evolution. Never mind that the theory has always had serious problems, most notably the lack of fossil evidence or the lack of a working mechanism in the case of punctuated equilibrium. There's also the amusing phenomena of evolutionary trees needing the be overhauled every time a new fossil is discovered. That is not the sign of a healthy theory. But let's just disregard those problems, call it a fact, and suppress dissenting views. :)
Bobby
hi again, I saw that "video article" about hugging today on Goggle news being reported.
Let me respond to this post with some verses and a comment about them from Daniel, Revelation, and 1 Chronicles.
Dan 7:25 He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.
This verse has always intrigued me.
The portion of the verse:
"...AND SHALL THINK TO CHANGE THE TIMES AND THE LAW;...."
I can say that now having been to many parts of the world and experienced "local" society in those foreign countries, the move is on in our generations to date to change the times and the law to be something God did not create.
God created the Heavens and Earth and all things in it.
Dan 8:23 And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise.
Dan 8:24 His power shall be great--but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction and shall succeed in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints.
Dan 8:25 By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall become great. Without warning he shall destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken--but by no human hand.
Here again one should pause and take a deep breath and breathe TRUTH with every breath! Do not be alarmed.
What comes clear to me is where these verses bring us..."AT THE LATTER END OF "THEIR" KINGDOM..."
"...THE TRANSGRESSORS HAVE
REACHED THEIR LIMIT..."
"...BUT NOT BY HIS OWN POWER..."
"...HE SHALL MAKE DECEIT PROSPER..."
"...IN HIS OWN MIND..."
"...BUT BY NO HUMAN HAND."
All this points to what is phenomenal in these days we are living, RADIO, TELEVISION, MOVIES AND NOW BLOGS AND THE POWER THESE FORMS OF COMMUNICATION ARE TO BE PERVASIVE AND CONTROL HOW PEOPLE OF THE WORLD THINK!!!
There has never been a time such as this.
WE ARE REACHING THE END OF "THEIR" LIMITS, THANK GOD.
Though these end this way, I hasten to finally point to a most marvelous TRUTH:
What is the end result of the GOSPEL around the world?
Revelation 7 and two noteworthy things,
1 MAN'S RESPONSE
2 ELECT ANGELS RESPONSE TO MAN'S RESPONSE:::>
MANKIND'S RESPONSE:::>
Rev 7:9 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
Rev 7:10 and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"
"SALVATION BELONGS TO OUR GOD WHO SITS ON THE THRONE, AND TO THE LAMB!"
The Elect Angels:::>
Rev 7:11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,
Rev 7:12 saying, "Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen."
At the end of the day as they say, when Angels are sent to the heirs of SALVATION and the HEIRS respond, ANGELS rejoice and proclaim:
"AMEN!", "BLESSING AND GLORY AND WISDOM AND THANKSGIVING AND HONOR AND POWER AND MIGHT BE TO OUR GOD FOREVER AND EVER! AMEN."
Long ago King David ascribed this revelation to mankind and to the Ben Stein's of the world:
1Ch 16:31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice, and let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!"
1Ch 16:32 Let the sea roar, and all that fills it; let the field exult, and everything in it!
1Ch 16:33 Then shall the trees of the forest sing for joy before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth.
1Ch 16:34 Oh give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever!
1Ch 16:35 Say also: "Save us, O God of our salvation, and gather and deliver us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name, and glory in your praise.
1Ch 16:36 Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting!" Then all the people said, "Amen!" and praised the LORD.
If God has anything to do with, Ben Stein, true to form, will someday KNOW THESE THINGS ARE THE TRUTH!
Today is always the DAY OF SALVATION, as long as it is still today.
Bobby!
Miss you, buddy. I always enjoy your blog, although I don't get to visit it much. I wanted to comment on the Piper video. That was phenomenal! Just a great reminder, and spoken from the heart. I am starting to listen to more of his sermons, and truly enjoying them. Challenging and inspirational!
Luv ya- your kids are so beautiful!
-Marc
also liked your older post on apologetics, and where you are at right now with using evidences (to some degree). It is a lifelong process, and a question I am just scratching the surface on. I do agree that it dishonors God to make the "if God exists" and "let's assume God exists" arguments. But sometimes I feel like a frog talking to a fish about dry land. It's like we are speaking different languages.
Hey Mark, good to hear from you! Lisa has been making some hints about comming down and visiting your guys, that would be great. You said it right about Piper..."spoken from the heart" I think that is half of his message honestly, he treats these truths with weight. He is not just throwing out good theology but as he hands it out says "treasure these things". We desperately need both of those, I have heard plenty of fellows who are all zeal and don't have nearly an adequate handle on the truths they are trying to disperse. On the flip side I have heard plenty of men speak of truths with excruciating precision yet with the coldness of a corpse.
Your analogy of a frog trying to explain dry land to a fish is great and I will be stealing it. That really is a picture of regeneration, naturally we are all water dwellers (in this world) but through the work of God's Spirit we are now land and water dwellers like the frog. (In the world but no longer of it).
Hi Bob,
I'm glad to see that you separated evolution out briefly between macro and micro. I was going to point out that there is science involved in the micro elements of evolution.
Here at Lehigh we have a microbology professor who has written two books challenging Darwinism (Michael Behe: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution and
The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
He is also a member of the Intelligent Design Institute or something like that. He often gets killed even on campus for his viewpoints, but I believe he has made another point that needs to be brought up here. Just as much as Atheistic presuppositions should not be used in the sciences, the converse is also true that a Theistic presupposition should also not be used. Science is investigative to find out how things work, not just about how God designed something to work.
I disagree slightly that science is about free thought. Free thought might initiate a scientific investigation, but beyond that, everything must be a balance between control and variable.
Hey Tim, yeah micro-evolution has some pretty solid evidence. In fact when trying to give evidence for evolution it is almost always an example of micro evolution that is invoked as proof. Simply put they stretch the data beyond what is warranted to conclude.
My only bone to pick is with how you want no presuppositions in science. That really is impossible Tim, in order for science to work we need to presuppose a boat load of things like uniformity of nature, that we are able to gain knowledge (epistemology), laws of thought/logic, and I would put even undergirding all of these is there a God.
These all will effect research and are fundamental to science. Science isn't this neutral practice like we are often urged to think, there is a lot of philosophy that underpins it. I heard someone say that philosophy is science's hand maid.
Hey Bob,
I actually didn't say no presuppositions, just no religious/faith-based ones. Of course we will have presuppositions. That's how we start out. But a God-believer can be a great scientist and discover, theorize, and experiment on an attribute of science without invoking Genesis, just as much as we want Evolutionists to do the same without evoking their unbelief in a God or Creator/Intelligent Designer. I'm just pointing out that a scientist doesn't have to start at "There is a God so...." or "There is no God so..."
Here's an non-biological example for my own particular study of science (more-so engineering). My research thesis for my masters degree was a economic problem of investments and returns for a non-profit organization, which in my case is a library. As I theorized, investigated, and modeled what I thought the best solution would be, I didn't presuppose that since God owns everything and He wants us to be good stewards of resources, that I should immediately start at a biblical perspective of managing our budgets and spending. No, actually, I started at the idea that I want to gain the knowledge (literally science) in the possible solutions and experiment on what I presupposed from my engineering student perspective and from my research on the topic.
The might seem like a trivial example compared to evolution, but it is science nonetheless, and it is the standard of practice that should be expected from all scientists in their respective fields. Could we gain faith in the process of science? Sure. Should it change the way we are scientists? No, just as we are now demanding that those who have lost faith in the process of science not change the way they are scientists from that lost point forward. Am I asking too much or being too idealistic? Maybe... probably... :)
Hey Tim, I just picked up "Blue Like Jazz" so you pop up in my thoughts now and then.
Granted there isn't a specifically Christian manner of doing mathmatics, but as you yourself alluded to a stewardship issue I don't think these are things we leave in the "upstairs" with stamp collecting.
I also do think our Christianity should change how we do science. The whole goal is to marvel in God's creation and give Him glory in doing so and to carry out the mandate to subdue the earth. But you yourself reckognize the idealism. I agree it seems like the best way to go is "neutrality" but in a fallen world that simply doesn't exist (nor would it in an unfallen world).
Hey Bob,
It's good to hear someone say that I'm in their thoughts. I appreciate that. Let me know what you think of BLJ. You still have my email address, right? If not, let me know (post a comment on my blog so I can know to give it to you more quickly).
BLJ was a good challenge for me to re-think some of what I held onto as truth in many areas, like Christianity, politics, etc. And not to take anything way from BLJ, but I think Searching For God Knows What is Miller's best book so far. For one thing, S4GKW is all about the gospel, and it really hit me hard.
Just generally about reading Donald Miller, if you can see past some of his political statements as his personal opinion and realize his faith isn't based on it at all, I think he has a lot of spot-on commentary about faith and what it could (should?) look like in the actions of our hearts and lives.
Back to the subject of this post, and I agree, the idealism is unrealistic (isn't is always?) in both a fallen and unfallen world. But if we were in an unfallen world, there would be no separation of sacred and secular, which maybe is how we, as followers of Jesus, should consider our ventures within the scientific world. Yes, we indeed should marvel at God's creation and be motivated to discover just how vast and miraculous His creations are, but we might also recognize that the "mechanics" of his creation aren't designation by sacred or secular, godly or ungodly. So within the overall communities of research, science, and discovers, we should respect both God and man in our efforts and our explanations, humbly subjecting ourselves to peer review and critique, encouraging others to take a look for themselves, and continue to pray that they (someday) see the Light that we seek after in both our scientific search, as well as our soul's search.
Cheers!
Post a Comment