Upon reflection, I definitely want to see it! I was fortunate to have a HS Biology teacher who taught both theories side by side. With a minimum of defensiveness, he stated why he thought evolution was superior. Since then, I’ve found few people as genuinely "liberal" as he. I’ve also heaped some scorn on traditional Creationism, noting that Days 1 2 and 3 could hardly have been 24 hours long without the sun, created on the 4th day! But recently I’ve been fascinated by the origins of social Darwinism, to which your quote below refers. It seems that if a theory is truly universal, it ought to apply to humans in the social sphere. I think the implications of Darwinism for society have been ignored--deliberately--because of the obvious repugnance of the obvious conclusion. I also have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of the 1,000 monkeys at 1,000 typewriters for 1,000 days, and a calculation of how many phrases from "Hamlet" they might type. All I’ve heard is "since the universe is infinite anything can happen." That’s fine for a High School debate comeback, but it’s not science. It seems those promoting evolution should be eager to answer simle questions such as mine, instead of denouncing me as ignorant and biased (as if they were neither!)

In the quote below, you compare Darwinism with the Bible. Do you mean to agree with me that Darwinism is essentially a religion for many people?

Finally, thanks for the names of people of faith who differ with me on this issue. At least they are willing to discuss it! Thanks also to those in Dembski’s latest book.

... This admittedly gruesome display of Holocaust stock footage cries out for the voice of reason that could lend a much needed historical analysis into the socio-political milieu of Victorian England that informed Darwin's discoveries. At the very least, I would expect a timeline of Darwin's discoveries, noting when a few players chose to misused his theories in the name of Social Darwinism. (In the same token, the Bible has been used far too often as a proof to justify some horrendous actions that bear no resemblance whatsoever to Jesus' teachings.)

Posted by: Witness for Peace | April 17, 2008 3:48 PM

It does sound like that. I think the thoughtful Becky Harrison was telling us the topic deserves better.
Blessings,
Witness for Peace

Posted by: Witness for Peace | April 17, 2008 4:08 PM

I liked the article, but it could have been run by an editor. Examples include cow-tow instead of kow-tow and Hitter instead of Hitler.

Posted by: Ben | April 17, 2008 5:11 PM

Having read this article -- I have no idea what the movie is about. I don't get if I'm supposed to laugh at the fact that Biola was founded by an oil man or not.

If Becky doesn't agree with the movie, that's her right, but her review isn't objective either. Her pot shots at "Fundamentalists" made my stomach turn too.

Show me a documentary that isn't biased. No one would pay to make it.

Posted by: frankie | April 17, 2008 5:50 PM

Please tell me that we don't have to all be James Dean to rebel!

So, basically, you're ticked off that someone else put together the documentary you wanted to put together, and they didn't say it the same way you would have.

This Christian army really should keep shooting away at their own side, it's much more effective that way.

Posted by: Connie | April 17, 2008 6:31 PM

I fully expect this film to be roundly criticized, largely by the scientists. Go figure.

Posted by: aaron | April 17, 2008 7:32 PM

"While you are doing that, the rest of us will have a scholarly discussion that takes the bible seriously, if not always literally."

Nothing in your post signaled to me that scholarly discussion with you would be particularly fruitful.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 17, 2008 7:51 PM

Witness, I would encourage you to read up on these issues more. In the first place, your terms are confusing. There have been no Darwinists since the 30's. Darwinist Evolution has been dead since then. After that we entered the NeoDarwinian Synthesis, and others argue we are now in a new state of EvoDevo, encompassing Punk Eek and Cladistics.

Secondly, no scientist would argue that the 1000 monkeys response is simply because "given enough time". That smacks of Literal Creationists strawmen, arguing that evolutionsts state that everything happens by chance. We most emphatically do not, and never have. It is argued that evolution happened by a combination of chance and natural selection. Which, incidently, is how I believe everything happens- by a combination of chance and process, all under the omnipotence of God.

Lastly, I would agree with you tangentially, that the impacts of evolution truly have been ignored- in the realm of theology.

Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 17, 2008 8:52 PM

It appears that the Michael Moore comparison is apt. That said, I think a compelling case can be made that academia has been utterly obtuse with resorting to Moore's tactics.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 17, 2008 10:35 PM

For example, juxtaposing Reagan's famous quote - "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" - against Stein's clarion call for academia to tear down its resistance to intelligent design" served only to insult my intelligence.

I was planning on seeing this movie this weekend. I sat through Moore's 911 twice to make sure that I understood what he was promoting. I like documentaries anyway. BUT - if this 'insult my intelligence' of Ms. BB - I have got to see it!

Having been to Yale Divinity School during the height of the political correctness movement in the 1990s, I can attest that there are consequences to raising one's voice against certain tenured titans.

So - no one argues with the landlord?

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 18, 2008 8:16 AM

Saddly - in education for the most part - the agenda is more important that scholarly discussion. If in fact there were no 'facts' in the theory of intellengent design. I believe that most teachers would be lining up to debate it and reveil its flaws. But the agenda is paramount not scholarly discussion.

I personally am tired of talking with my sons, one in high school and the other in college and hearing them tell me about how their teachers in several of their classes blast the current adm and the war in Iraq during class time.

Literature of the 18th Century and Bush is part of the lecture? Anatomy 101 and Iraq is part of the curriculium?

I went as far as challenging one of the high school teacher when I was there for parent - teacher conferences. I asked if they would be willing to discuss in open forum the war is Iraq and terror in the 21st century. We would do it in the evening in the school auditorium and the students would be allow to ask questions. They declined. (personally - this person has no guts in my never to be humble opinion)

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 18, 2008 10:51 AM

Ms DBB

You could change Stein to Moore and Expelled to 911 or Sicko and this review would work just fine. I am going to see this one just because of your accessment of it. I know that I will like it - and I like Stein and his humor.

I have loved watching documentaries all my life. I have look and found some that I thought had been lost. I have even spent money and watched several Moore Docs. If aproach to donumentry is classic, very much life that of Riefenstahl. The only difference between Riefenstahl and Moore is that Riefenstahl told the truth.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 18, 2008 11:50 AM

"If aproach to donumentry is classic, very much life that of Riefenstahl. The only difference between Riefenstahl and Moore is that Riefenstahl told the truth."

So you agree with Riefenstahl that Hitler was the One True Leader who sought to restore the glory of the German nation? Certainly that was her story in "Triumph of the Will."

Posted by: carl copas | April 18, 2008 12:24 PM

So many of the far right do ascribe to Social Darwinism. It is what they seek to practice everyday. So many good Republicans and self-proclaimed Christians believe the writings of Ayn Rand were the greatest ever. Ayn Rand was the great ATHEIST, philosopher/novelist of the twentieth century. Her books are illustrative of Social Darwinism. I work in a law firm of wealthy Republicans who will tell you very quickly that some people are worth more than others. The sickest part of that is that many of them are Jewish.

I remember a very wise individual said something very simple and profound about evolution: "The Bible tells you that God did it. Evolution tells you how he did it."

People need to become followers of Christ instead of Christians and start worrying about the real problems of the world.

Posted by: Nancy Overholtzer | April 18, 2008 12:49 PM

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 18, 2008 1:10 PM

So how did Moore lie?

Sojo did an article awhile ago about this and it was chatt out to the point I believe everyone was done with it. I have seen 911 and parts of SICKO. Riefenstahl is more entertaining and truthful than Moore. I look forward to seeing how Stein handles the topic. Most of the time he will present the info/facts and allow you to draw your own conclusions. Moore cannot.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 18, 2008 1:52 PM

I await Becky's take on "A Plumm Summer".

Posted by: kevin s. | April 18, 2008 2:29 PM

Kevin S.:
My neighbors are the rich Republicans you folks are arguing about. Except this is an overwhelmingly liberal state, so they are Democrats. Their houses and cars scream social Darwinism. I've been warned more than once about hanging out laundry on the porch of my apartment!
Karen Brown:
I respectfully disagree. In the animal world, the strong rule over the weak. While this doesn’t translate into intentional extermination, necessarily, it certainly leaves no place for weaklings or for compassion among the strong. Whether maladapted to resist disease, or to find food, or to endure periods of near starvation, the same mechanisms of natural selection must operate among higher primates if they operate at all. If it’s a bit of a jump from Darwin to Hitler, it’s no jump at all from Darwin to "let them starve while I practice global triage, passively or otherwise." Only a knowledge that the poor exist in God’s image gives a sure motivation for compassion. So I agree with the poster [Jedidiah Palosaari ]who agreed with me that the primary problem is theological. There is no compassion, and no mystery, in Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, or Dawkinism. Common grace can operate in any individual, but the source of that is God, not an ideology, however self consciously "scientific."

Posted by: Witness for Peace | April 18, 2008 3:09 PM

I think the worst thing that Moore did was mock a man suffering the onset of Alzheimer's Disease. Sadly, that same spirit of mocking is what we find in Expelled. I'd rather see a spirit of love and grace.

Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 18, 2008 3:42 PM

It is revealing, in a way, that most opponents seem to automatically categorize 'fittest' as in 'Survival of' as some kind of mean, anti-social brute.

That isn't exactly all that successful even in the mundane world. Even brutal dictators have to at least put on the mask of charisma and caring, even if they don't actually follow through. (At least on the way up to power.)

And when you consider that 'fittest' also includes reproduction.. the richest, most able, most handsome man who also happens to be a socially inept jerk and therefore doesn't find anyone willing to bear his children, (mistresses typically don't, nor do gold digging arm candy), or assist directly in the ability of others to raise theirs (the way the support staff in a wolf pack aids the alpha breeding pair), he is a failure.

And in most social species, that means being able to 'play well with others'. Because no matter how big, how mean, how strong you are, ESPECIALLY humans, kick them out of all human company, cut them all from all human traffic and trade and goods not made by their own hands, and they don't last long.

Posted by: Karen Brown | April 18, 2008 3:46 PM

Witness- you stated that in the animal world, the strong rule over the weak. Who told you that? Evolutionary Theory states that those who are more adapted reproduce more, but those adaptions most often do not relate to strength. Additionally, cooperation, such as the formation of the mitochondria within our cells, leads to greater protection as well- and I think that's something that Jesus came to teach us about more. Regardless of what our DNA says, we shouldn't let sin rule us. Those tendencies towards sin meant nothing when we were without knowledge of good and evil, but once we were able to differentiate between the two, we became morally culpable for our previous innocent actions. I feel no anger towards the Ichonemia Wasp laying it's eggs in a live caterpillar to digest them from the inside-out. I feel great moral outrage if a human attempts the same thing.

Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 18, 2008 3:48 PM

"Sojo did an article awhile ago about this and it was chatt out to the point I believe everyone was done with it." Moderatelad

That tells me precious little about how he lied. I guess I'm supposed to take your word for it. But that is kind of hard when you make statements like:

"Riefenstahl is more entertaining and truthful than Moore." Moderatelad

Somehow I find that statement lacking in credibility when Reifenstahl denied until the day she died that she knew anything about the holocaust while it happening. Somehow that stretches credibility. Also, when the premise of an entire documentary is premised on a lie, I find it hard to say that she was in any way truthful. Maybe you can reconcile that in your mind. I cannot reconcile it my mind.

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 18, 2008 5:29 PM

Connie,

You're right. I believe in Jesus, his death, resurection and the Holy Spirit. I believe those are real historical events. But I don't take much of Genesis seriously or part of the old testament literally. I have a more Hebrew approach to the Genesis stories. The majority of Jews see Genesis as an origin story designed to reveal God's character instead of literal list of how God created the world.

So I really don't understand why there needs to be an actual literal interpretation of both Genesis creation stories. Thanks for explaining that. What does believing in the literal approach to Genesis reveal about God?

p

Posted by: Payshun | April 18, 2008 7:37 PM

Connie-

You were stating that you don't know anyone who believes every theory. I would submit you don't know any scientists. All scientists believe every theory. By defintion. A theory is an overarching explanation of reality that is so filled with evidence and facts to support it that it has become the scientific explanation of our times.

Now, if you were speaking of the popular use of the word theory, as in "geuss", well, then, you have a point. But you are also rather radically mixing your terms, for no scientist would use that definition of a theory in regards to something scientific, like evolution.

Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 19, 2008 2:33 AM

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 19, 2008 9:00 AM

I think it is a good compairson - you may not agree and that is fine. I think that Riefenstahl was more of an 'artist' than Moore. Her camera work - editing and music brought you into the production/story. Moore's film was about 40% CNN footage, hard on slapping you with the story/agenda but little when it comes to artistry that would bring the viewer to contemplate the message. I believe that Stein will present the facts/info and allow the viewer to draw their own conclusions and expectation. Moore just told you what to think and who the enemy is in the world.
(his music sucked too)

It will be interesting to see how successful Stein is in the theater as to Moore. Personally - I believe that Moore with 911 and SICKO will have done better in the theater but Stein will do better in video sales. I can't wait to show EXPELLED to my video club at school - we are scheduled to view 911 in May sometime. I don't talk about the message to the students unless they bring the subject up. But I will have fun pointing out the flaws and shortcomings of the production and style.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 19, 2008 11:31 AM

Karen--

"The actual proposal of ID is ONLY that some 'intelligence', unnamed and with no qualities listed other than taking this role, planned how the universe would develop and the form it would take. "

You have hit upon a great irony about Intelligent Design and those creationists who are pushing so hard for it. Those scientists who promote ID, such as Michael Behe, believe fully in evolution and in an old earth. Creationists who jump on the ID band wagon don't seem to make that connection.

Posted by: squeaky | April 19, 2008 1:34 PM

Squeaky,

It all depends on how you read the bible. If the opening chapter and a half are a literal checklist of how everything was created then yes it contradicts science and literally makes no sense. For example Genesis says the stars were created after the Earth. That can't work because scientifically we know that stars were formed first.

That's just one example.

p

Posted by: Payshun | April 19, 2008 5:08 PM

P--

I was really hoping you would just check out my suggestions, because I can go on and on about this, and it doesn't take much to get me going. But, you said the magic words, and off I go!

Hugh Ross' answer to your first point is that the Bible was written from a specific point of view--that being what a person would have seen had they been on the surface of the earth as it was created.

Scientifically, we understand that the Earth formed from accretion of material while the solar system was forming. In the early stages of formation, the Earth was undergoing far more volcanism than it is today from the rapid release of heat right after a major collision occurred with a large, Mars-sized object.

Also, the atmosphere was not fully formed, meaning that Earth was more vulnerable to meteorite impact. Both activities throw huge amounts of debris into the atmosphere, clouding out the sun. What a person would see from this vantage point is light passing through this haze of debris, but no sun, moon, or stars. Just as we see on cloudy days.

So, in the first ages of creation, the debris had not cleared. The 4th age signals that the atmosphere was clear enough so a person on earth could see them.

The word for "day" can be interpreted as literal 24 hour period, but it can also be interpreted as an age of unspecified length. Taking the latter interpretation matches best with what scientists actually observe about the ages of rocks on Earth. Here is an example of His creation informing His word. It takes far more mental gymnastics to defend the former interpretation, although creationists try very hard to do so. I'm not sure why they are so threatened by the latter interpretation, although I have my ideas (don't ask, I don't want to be writing all night! =))

There was a point when I was really studying Genesis and trying to understand it, and although I attribute these arguments to Hugh Ross, I also had formulated them independently of him before I read his books. I'm actually surprised more scientists haven't made these connections.

The Framework Hypothesis is one literary interpretation of the Hebrew Poetry you speak of. Check it out--it's pretty interesting. It links days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 6 as grouping similar aspects of creation. 1 and 4=light, sun, moon, stars; 2 and 5 = oceans and ocean creatures; 3 and 6 = land and land creatures.

We keep trying to take this western interpretation of Hebrew literature as being in perfect temporal order (this gets us into trouble in other parts of the Bible as well), whereas Hebrews didn't always write like that. Sometimes they grouped events thematically, rather than by what happened first and when. Certainly, the OT itself is not organized temporally.

In either case, the order of creation is in complete agreement with the order of the formation of Earth and life on Earth as science knows it. In either case, both these interpretations are in complete agreement that God created the Heavens and the Earth.

Posted by: squeaky | April 19, 2008 5:42 PM

Without taking the first book of the Bible as the word of God , you change the understanding of who Jesus Christ is . Obviously this shows in our world view also . You can understand the importance of Genesis , taking it literally or not . The Bible begins with the creation of the universe: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 NIV). This single verse describes the actual transformation of invisible energy into all of the fundamental physical matter (as summed up in Albert Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation) that would be formed into stars, planets and everything else - including us. Scientists now estimate that the great event took place approximately 15 billion years ago.
The next verse describes the earth after its creation, long after the creation of the universe: "Now the earth was [or became] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" (Genesis 1:2 NIV). Scientists estimate the age of the earth to be about 5 billion years old - leaving an estimated 10 billion years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

There has been a tremendous amount of disagreement between science and religion, each side armed with its own obvious facts to refute the other. People of science and religion need not disagree so often if they would realize that their different observations are the result of each looking only at opposite sides of the same coin. The contradictory evidence is actually an illusion, caused by omission, which virtually guarantees that alone, either scientific theory or religious doctrine can only be half-right in their understanding of the creation of the universe or the origin of humanity. Together however, the picture is complete and harmonious.

We all realize that God was Creator, but how often do we consider what was involved in that creation? God was a chemist, a physicist, an astronomer, a biologist. He was most certainly an artist, a maker of all of our world's beauty. He was the lawmaker of all of the unseen forces that make "nature" orderly and predictable.

The universe as it exists was not produced by some cosmic accident. The conditions of creation were intricately planned and considered. A mindless uncontrolled "big bang" would result in destruction and chaos, not the life and order we now see.

On the other hand, a great initial expansion (explosion) of physical matter that had just been transformed (created) from pure energy (from a physical point of view, literally nothing), followed by orderly development (from natural laws put into force beforehand by a Creator) of stars, galaxies and everything else, is reasonable and logical. It satisfies both religion and science.

The First Day
The first recorded Words of God that we have are "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3 NIV). The sun was already shining brightly, but God made the earth's thick new atmosphere allow diffuse light to penetrate to the surface. And so it was that the light was made separate from darkness. The first day of earth's creation was literally the first "day" as someone on earth's surface would experience it - a period of opaque light, and a period of darkness. (Genesis 1:3-5)

The Second Day
The separation of the waters. There was yet no liquid water, no oceans. All of the water was in the form of a vapor, a worldwide super-fog, extending a number of kilometers/miles up from the very hot (above the boiling temperature of water) bare-rock earth's surface (the earth's core remains molten right to the present day). God's "hovering over the waters" in verse 2 describes His being above that gaseous-water atmosphere, not a liquid ocean. God then caused most of the water to condense onto the cooling earth which simultaneously formed a whole-planet ocean and cleared the sky. (Genesis 1:6-8)

The Third Day
The first appearance of dry ground. The further cooling of the surface set in motion a process of natural contraction, uplifting and motion of the crust (the process continues today, called "plate tectonics"). The earth changed from a smooth one-level molten "cue ball" to a planet with an irregular surface with ocean basins and continental landmasses. With dry ground available, the first plants were made to grow in great abundance. (Genesis 1:9-13)

The Fourth Day
With the sky now clear, the sun, moon and stars were dependably visible. They were to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years." The sun marked the day (sunset to sunset), the moon the month (new moon to new moon), and the stars the seasons (constellations are seen in particular seasons e.g. "Orion" is visible in winter in the northern hemisphere, which is summer in the southern hemisphere). (Genesis 1:14-19)

The Fifth Day
Great numbers of birds and sea creatures. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." (Genesis 1:20-23)

The Sixth Day
Vast numbers of land animals. Man. From the man, woman (humans today are just now discovering how to genetically alter fertilized embryos, and even to create one human from the tissue of another - known as "cloning"). (Genesis 1:24-31)

The Seventh Day
The Sabbath Day. "By the seventh day God had finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day He rested from all His work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it He rested [or ceased] from all the work of creating that He had done." The day that is the basis for The Fourth Commandment. (Genesis 2:2-3)

The question of whether the seven days of creation were literal days, or symbolic of stages of development is actually irrelevant to the undeniable reality that Creation happened. The observable universe, the earth beneath our feet, and every one of us exist. Who needs more proof than that?

Posted by: Mingo | April 20, 2008 1:22 PM

"Abiogenisis is part of the field of chemistry, not biology and evolution, and is for other people to look at."

Abiogenesis is similarly unable to explain how something came of nothing. Physicists have proffered explanations as well. My point stands.

"Oh, and Kevin S. If you think evolution should be dismissed for not providing where life originated,"

I didn't say it could be dismissed on those grounds. Someone claimed that it explained how creation happened. I disagree that this is the case.

"Well to be fair the bible contradicts its own accounts."

They are differing accounts, not contradicting accounts.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 20, 2008 9:14 PM

Squeaky said:
We keep trying to take this western interpretation of Hebrew literature as being in perfect temporal order (this gets us into trouble in other parts of the Bible as well), whereas Hebrews didn't always write like that. Sometimes they grouped events thematically, rather than by what happened first and when. Certainly, the OT itself is not organized temporally.

Me:
I don't read Genesis or the old testament in a western way. I don't read the New in a western format either. I stopped doing that nearly 12 years ago.

I agree with your point. But many evangelicals read Genesis as a laundry list of how God created the universe. That's my biggest critique. Many evangelicals superimpose their world view on a book that is far more complex than they think.

It should not be read like that. Many Hebrew folks understand the importance of myth and epic poetry (think Gilgamesh) and it's ability to portray deeper truths than can not be conveyed by direct speech. They used myth as poetry to show how El aka Yaweh was different than any other god.

It shows that God is good, magnicifent and everything Mingo said.The gift is that there are two different stories and each one has more to add about God's magnificence.

p

Posted by: Payshun | April 20, 2008 11:18 PM

"Many evangelicals superimpose their world view on a book that is far more complex than they think"

This statement much has to do with the reason of Mr. Stein's film . Mr Stein is a Jew .

Where you have gone off track in your imposing the thoughts of Evangelicals , is by the account of Genesis . What has given many Evangelicals their world view is FROM reading Genesis . In fact western Civilization .
Much of the left , even mainstream Religion has fallen unfortunately much to the Eastern Philospies , Mysticism , etc and of course the ORIGINAL SIN , the belief tht the road to God is in their hands , not In God's hands as Genesis teaches .

The belief we need a savior and a Lord is contrary and even insulting to those who have a different world view . How we value life , sin , and the Magnificience of Creation of the human Race and the Universe .

Posted by: Mck | April 21, 2008 2:06 AM

"I don't read Genesis or the old testament in a western way. I don't read the New in a western format either. I stopped doing that nearly 12 years ago. "

By "we" I meant the collective Western, Christian, "we" in general--not you in particular. I know you don't do that.

"Many evangelicals superimpose their world view on a book that is far more complex than they think. "

Exactly. what I find interesting is that in response to the poetic interpretation of Genesis, some creationists have countered that it makes the story too complex for a child to understand. Therefore, because it must be a simple account, the complex understanding of it can't possibly be correct. That argument might make sense if the entire Bible had been written specifically for Kindergartners...why should one part of it be simple while the rest of it is so complex?

Hmm--I guess my belief that Mick and Mingo are the same person is wrong?

Posted by: squeaky | April 21, 2008 9:58 AM

P --
What's it say about God? That He can do that, that He was before creation, that He designed it. Even that He knows the beginning. That He's omnipotent is a big deal to us literalists. While I admit that it's nearly impossible for us to not interpret Scripture from our own frame of reference, I do my best to let Scripture form my frame of reference. I don't particularly care for many of the 'rules' that come out of Scripture, but since I believe it to be true, it forces me to live with it.
Many passages in the New Testament point to the first chapter of Genesis and take it literally, so that's another reason. For what it's worth, I personally believe God also designed the decay and evolution that we see today -- so even though the stars may appear older than the earth, that doesn't mean they weren't created a day later. (So that He created some young stars and some older ones and everything in between.)But I will spare you the apologetics -- I am not trying to win anyone over -- I'm just letting you in on the thought process.

I don't believe that eventually, all things will point to my understanding being the correct one. I look forward to the day when learning the exact reality of how it actually happened blows my mind. My guess is that we'll all be plesantly surprised.

I appreciate your openness.

Jedidiah--
While it has been a while since I've had dinner with a scientist, the most recent was a geologist. He was older and discussed how he remembered how everyone laughed at the theory that a meteor did in the dinasours. (I live in Colorado, so we get a lot of geologist out this way.) Now -- if he was using the term incorrectly, I beg your pardon. Perhaps he was talking down to me. But within the greater theories of science, like evolution, there are a bunch of smaller ones -- and that is where you get a lot of fun scholarly disagreement.

Posted by: Connie | April 21, 2008 11:11 AM

lloyd crump: "Moddieladdie in front of a class? Terrifying, AB-SO-LUTE-LY terrifying. It may take years to undo the damage. Lord help us all."

Uncalled for, Lloyd. I disagree with almost every thing Moderatelad posts on here. But at least he's willing to engage in exchange of views. The only thing you ever do is post childish insults.

kevin s: "I would note that Stein's intention is not to make a case for ID, but rather to illuminate academia[']s absurd aversion to ideas that do not line up with the status quo. Even Garrison concedes that such aversion exists."

Pomona being the one exception I suppose?

Part of the problem with the discussion is that young earth creationists get conflated with IDers, some of whom believe in a very old universe and earth. When I read Dawkins and Dennett, they often refer to the two schools of thought interchangeably. Moreover, within the ID camp, there are differing views on precisely how much divine design and intervention has taken place.

payshun: "But that doesn't mean that one should throw out science because it contradicts the bible. The bible contradicts itself in details, in story in origin... It's a complicated book full of myth, poetry, literal history, theophanies, fables, parables and a bunch of other stuff. To make it literal explanation of the universe misses the mark and turns the bible into something it's not."

Well said. I don't see why this threatens some people's faith but clearly it does.

Posted by: carl copas | April 21, 2008 12:18 PM

"The only thing you ever do is post childish insults."
carl croakus

And the only thing you ever do is post tendentious, pedantic, and pretentious pronouncements that are of no interest to anyone.

You need the same advice I gave to Wolverine: refrain from posting for awhile. Read and learn from mature, grown-up minds on here.

Posted by: lloyd crump | April 21, 2008 12:35 PM

Posted by: lloyd crump | April 21, 2008 12:06 PM

Moddieladdie in front of a class? Terrifying, AB-SO-LUTE-LY terrifying.

Me in front of a class - even I believe that it is terrifying. (LOL) It is a video club that I am starting at a local high school. I could not get any money to start it so I am pouring my own resources into it at this time. I have friends int he industry that are willing to come in and in open forum talk about the process of film making and video editing as well as script writing.

It may take years to undo the damage. Lord help us all.

Damage - not much. My motto to the students has always been 'Don't let your schooling get in the way of your education'.

By the way - it's Moderatelad - period.

Blessings-
.

Posted by: moderatelad | April 21, 2008 1:45 PM

Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 12:25 PM

'...film called 'Crossroads', which was supposed...'

There are many times that the script or project has one name and the final product has a totally different name. This happens a lot.

And it being edited to say..

Are you talking about MM and F-911?

Editing Dawkins - yes there were some edits. But Stein allow Dawkins to talk and the viewer knew that Dawkins did not believe that ID was viable theory. Dawkins looked very scholarly and articulate. MM edits to make people that disagree with him look like bafoons at best. No Stein is not going to let Dawkins talk for an hour - this is Steins work and he only has 90 mins to tell the story. No conservative was given as much time in MM productions as Stein gave to Dawkins alone.

'...recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before...'

It is called copyright law. You want a quote from Stein - ask for an interview. You want footage to use for your own personal or professonal use. Purchase it like everyone else does. This is their work and you have no right to take it for your use without permission. Try taking a recording device into the next Harrison Ford premiere. If you get caught, let me know where to send a box of cookies to for you to share.

All the footage that you made fun of in Steins movie - he more than likely purchased it for somewhere around $300.00 to $1200.00 a second. You are not only stealing from Mr Stein but from all the crew that is looking forward residuales from this movie. They have families and house payments too.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderate.ad | April 21, 2008 2:21 PM

Posted by: lloyd crump | April 21, 2008 12:35 PM

You need the same advice I gave to Wolverine: refrain from posting for awhile. Read and learn from mature, grown-up minds on here.

Right now I am not sure that you would be on the 'mature' list with how you have handled people on this site. You seem to be king of the one liners - sarcassim is easy, scholarly discord is hard.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 2:31 PM

"There are many times that the script or project has one name and the final product has a totally different name. This happens a lot."

As it clearly noted, the domain name of 'expelledthemovie' had already been purchased. If Crossroads ever had been a working title, that point had already passed by the time of the interview.

"Are you talking about MM and F-911?

Editing Dawkins - yes there were some edits. But Stein allow Dawkins to talk and the viewer knew that Dawkins did not believe that ID was viable theory. Dawkins looked very scholarly and articulate. MM edits to make people that disagree with him look like bafoons at best. No Stein is not going to let Dawkins talk for an hour - this is Steins work and he only has 90 mins to tell the story. No conservative was given as much time in MM productions as Stein gave to Dawkins alone."

First, who the heck cares about Michael Moore. Just like conversations about ID inevitably come back to 'Evolution is bad' (as if even if Evolution WERE proved to be bad, this would prove ID were valid), conversation about THIS MOVIE seems to inevitably come back to Michael Moore with you. Given your opinion OF Michael Moore, if the tactics used in this movie are comparable enough to be brought up so often, this reflects very badly on.. this movie. Secondly, we aren't talking about removing 'filler'. We are talking about removing (a word you should be very familiar with), 'context'. Indeed, and keeping the statement by Stein that absolutely contradicts that context.

They removed the QUESTION that was asked, and they removed the sections that note that A. This was NOT his view of how it happened and B. That even if it had happened that way, it ultimately does not support ID.

And ADDS Stein's gleeful proclamation that Dawkins supports ID, and cuts to cheesy sci fi movies.

I think, given the choice between keeping in important information, and filling that space with scenes from, say, 'Mars Needs Women', I'd keep the information. But that's just me.

Does Dawkins 'look scholarly'? Well, barring making him foam at the mouth, be hard to make him look otherwise. But the intent is precisely to 'make him look like a bafoon(sic)' by directly declaring (not even intimating) that the hypothetical he discusses is his actual hypothesis about the development of life on Earth.

"It is called copyright law. You want a quote from Stein - ask for an interview. You want footage to use for your own personal or professonal use. Purchase it like everyone else does. This is their work and you have no right to take it for your use without permission. Try taking a recording device into the next Harrison Ford premiere. If you get caught, let me know where to send a box of cookies to for you to share."

He was noting why he couldn't quote exactly what was in the interview.

"All the footage that you made fun of in Steins movie - he more than likely purchased it for somewhere around $300.00 to $1200.00 a second. You are not only stealing from Mr Stein but from all the crew that is looking forward residuales from this movie. They have families and house payments too."

Who is stealing from whom? There was no footage shown, and the quotes are from a review by Dawkins of the movie. As there is no footage, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 3:09 PM

Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 3:09 PM

'...on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed...'

I read this as you when to a screening of the movie and were refused enterence with a recording device. If that was the case - I would not allow you into one of my screenings with a recording device.

If I am wrong - I'm sorry.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 3:42 PM

Carl Copas -

This whole thread is an illustration of why I've been spending less and less time on this blog lately. Trust me, though - one middle aged college professor to another - that your contributions are one of the things that keep me reading. I'll try to stick with it if you do.

Posted by: Another nonymous | April 21, 2008 4:12 PM

Posted by: Another nonymous | April 21, 2008 4:12 PM

DITTO - Carl is great reading and I enjoy thinking about what he has to say. You too for that matter. I am getting to middle age but am far from a college prof.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 21, 2008 4:25 PM

*shucks*

In all seriousness, thanks to Another nonymous and Moderatelad for the compliments.

And now, back to grading (badly-written) papers.

Posted by: carl copas | April 21, 2008 4:47 PM

Another nonymous, if you ever want to chat in a different kind of setting, you can reach me at bhikku_bum@yahoo.com.

Posted by: carl copas | April 21, 2008 4:55 PM

Mick:
This statement much has to do with the reason of Mr. Stein's film . Mr Stein is a Jew .

Me:
and hardly a rabbi. Talk to them. See what the majority of Hebrew rabbi say on the subject of it.

Mick also said:
Where you have gone off track in your imposing the thoughts of Evangelicals , is by the account of Genesis . What has given many Evangelicals their world view is FROM reading Genesis . In fact western Civilization .
Much of the left , even mainstream Religion has fallen unfortunately much to the Eastern Philospies , Mysticism , etc and of course the ORIGINAL SIN , the belief tht the road to God is in their hands , not In God's hands as Genesis teaches

Me:
Original sin's real sin was the lie that you can be god. It was not that there were many roads to God. The truth is that God listens to the prayers of people that are neither Muslim, Jews, or Christians. He always has and he always will.

Mysticism is not a bad thing. When used correctly it's actually wonderful.

Connie said:
What's it say about God? That He can do that, that He was before creation, that He designed it. Even that He knows the beginning. That He's omnipotent is a big deal to us literalists. While I admit that it's nearly impossible for us to not interpret Scripture from our own frame of reference, I do my best to let Scripture form my frame of reference. I don't particularly care for many of the 'rules' that come out of Scripture, but since I believe it to be true, it forces me to live with it.

Me:
Yes it does and that's the tricky part because you and Mick and other literalists believe it to be true because the bible says so. But many times I find that literalists (whether Jew, Christian or Muslim) don't look at the poetic nature of the text and study it from a more rabbinical perspective. they have thousands of years of study of the text. They know more about the text and it's formation and if they can say it's only poetry than I won't disagree with them.

Connie said:
Many passages in the New Testament point to the first chapter of Genesis and take it literally, so that's another reason.

Me:
I respect your right to believe that. I am not here to convince that you should adopt my view. But I am going to point out inaccuracies about how the text itself actually works. I don't agree with your reading of the text but I do think that the new testament writers believed myth to be true, like the book of Enoch and a whole host of other texts. Look at Jude and the story of the Assumption of Moses as a perfect example. That story is a myth thousands of years old. But Jude (possibly our Lord's brother) believed that Michael the Archangel fought Satan over Moses' body. That story is a folk tale.

My disagreement centers on the actual creation itself. the story of Adam speaks to a historical story. It's a narrative but it's no longer poetry. Not only that but one can believe in myth and still be true. I believe God is omnipotent but I also believe he tempers that omnipotence with mercy and grace. I learned that from the myth of Genesis. If he did not he would be a tyrant which he's not.

Connie said:
For what it's worth, I personally believe God also designed the decay and evolution that we see today -- so even though the stars may appear older than the earth, that doesn't mean they weren't created a day later. (So that He created some young stars and some older ones and everything in between.)But I will spare you the apologetics -- I am not trying to win anyone over -- I'm just letting you in on the thought process.

Me:
Thank you for having the guts to do so. That is an amazing trait. Many of the stars are older than the earth. Science has made that very clear. The Sun is 4.57 billion years old. The Earth is 4.55 billion years old. That's where we disagree. The earth was created second. I don't have a problem with the poetry of the old testament saying the opposite. It can do that. Thanks for sparing me the apologetics. I heard them all before and I find them tiring.

Connie said:
I don't believe that eventually, all things will point to my understanding being the correct one. I look forward to the day when learning the exact reality of how it actually happened blows my mind. My guess is that we'll all be plesantly surprised.

Me:
I could not agree more.

p

Posted by: Payshun | April 21, 2008 5:30 PM

What exactly do you mean "a very Jewish-looking Ben Stein?" Judaism is a religion, not a race or ethnographic group.

I agree with your assessment of the film. It is not really about ID vs. evolution as it is about religion vs. science. No one can win that argument; they are two entirely different subjects with different vocabularies and standards of merit.

Posted by: Nell Minow | April 21, 2008 5:39 PM

Actually, Neil, being Jewish is both.

It is an ethnic group. A person is considered ethnically Jewish because their mother is Jewish, without ever practicing the religion of Judaism.

It is also a religion. A person whose family isn't Jewish can convert to Judaism.

Yes, confusing, but yes, it is both. One can be either, or both, or neither.

Posted by: Karen Brown | April 21, 2008 6:47 PM