B-B-B-Bad to the Bone.
Rebel truth-seekers vs. complacent status-quo defenders. Free thinkers vs. conformist mind controllers. A fight for good vs. evil, a struggle for the soul of a people. All set to the strains of George Thorogood's early-80s rebel anthem.
Who are these high-minded rebels, and who are these anti-progress thought suppressers? Partisans vs. Nazis? Revolutionaries vs. Red Coats? Not this movie. In "Expelled," it's Intelligent Design adherents vs. the Darwinist scientific establishment--or make that, the Darwinist American establishment.
B-B-B-Bad to the Bone.
Not set for release until February, the buzz campaign has already started for this unabashedly Michael-Moore-style, in-your-face documentary. Narrated by Ben Stein--best known for giving his money away and slowly repeating the name "Bueller" from the front of a classroom to hilarious effect--"Expelled" aims to expose the stifling of debate in this country about the origins of life and make the case for the validity of Intelligent Design.
Yesterday, I attended a presentation to drum up advance support for the film. It was led by Paul Lauer--a Christian marketing maven best known for helping make "Passion of the Christ" the blockbuster it was--and one of the film's co-producers, a man identified only as Logan, who bore a striking resemblance to Ned Flanders incarnate, albeit tanner (and, being a huge Flanders fan, I mean that as a compliment). The purpose was to win over Christians influential in their communities, to make this a must-see, a film to which they'll preach about, gab about, and bring their friends, family, churches, non-Christian friends, etc. etc.
B-B-B-Bad to the Bone.
Let the buzz begin. Not that "Expelled's" intentionally incendiary tone will need much help from the pastors and religious-school teachers in attendance at yesterday's meeting. From the clips and trailers they showed, the film presents a world of--to use a quote I heard repeatedly yesterday--"the new scientific movement" (Intelligent Design, in case you weren't sure) vs. the tired, old "theory" of evolution. Relying on news-clip montages, interviews, even cut-away shots of concentration camps, "Expelled" talks of faithful scientists and other believers losing jobs, losing grants, even losing friends in defense of ID. And, relying on footage of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and other atheists du jure, it sets up a worldview of ID vs. atheism, with no gray areas in between.
And, taking it even further, it posits that, without God, there can be no source of morality, no reason not to "stab someone on the subway," to borrow another phrase I heard a couple of times yesterday (and which explained, according to Lauer and Logan, the concentration camp scenes, since the film will explore the influence of Darwinism on Hitler). So the battle for ID to be taught on par with evolution is no more, no less than a battle for the legitimacy of morality itself.
Admittedly, all of this is culled from a bunch of clips and the verbal description offered by Lauer and Logan. We'll have to wait until Februrary to see the whole movie and, perhaps just as fun, watch the ID/Evolution battle flair up around it, this time with liberals on the receiving end of a Michael-Moore-style on-screen beating.
In the meantime, need I say it again? Well, maybe one more time.
B-B-B-Bad to the Bone.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
No Creator? Nothing Supernatural? Nothing greater than what is? Did evolution create itself, gravity, laws of nature? Just as the 1st particle in the "big bang" was created so wonderfully by the embodiment of all G-o-o-d, God, created the forces of evolution that caused the big bang to become what is and what is going to be. How awesome is it that what we did not know and thought of as miracles is God's way of allowing us to beautifully come to know what he did in His very natural way? Unfortunately, the more we discover, and the more we know of his vey natural ways, we think less of these actions as being awesome and creative. As we discover the ways that He created, we think less of the creation. Therein lies the simpler thoughts of our ability to have free will.
When we die, we'll be availed to all of the wonders of his creation. At the time when we see Him, we will then evalute and hopefully not regret a mistake of not giving him praise for creation in its simplist aspects. It will be then when we evaluate our free will and whether we enjoyed the good we were exposed to and fostered it or wrote it off to nothing spectactular.
The lesson that we should not miss is why this creation? When He explains that, we will then evaluate how our free will allowed LOVE to be received, understood, evolved, or cultervated and shared.
Evolution always points to a source. We must have the will to want to know that source.
I AM A TOTALLY SOLD OUT ADVOCATE FOR CREATION SCIENCE. HAVE BEEN FOR 17 YEARS. I TOOK MY SON TO SEE THE COAL SEAM NAT'L MONUMENT IN W/AUSTRALIA MANY YEAR AGO. TO SEE THE TRUTH OF A WHOLE TREE FOSSIL THROWN INTO A SOLID BIT OF SEDIMENT IN WHOLE I BELIEVE - SHOW THAT A CATACLYSMIC (Flood)EVENT TOOK THAT TREE WHOLE AND PUT IT THERE. IF IT HAD BEEN BURIED PART WAY THE NEALY WHOLE TREE WOULD HAVE WORN AWAY SLOWLY. THIS SEAM WAS UNCOVERED LAST CENTURY AND THE EARTH IN VERY FLAT AUSTRALIA COULD NOT HAVE JUST COVERED IT WHOLE. OTHER FOSSILS BEYOND CARBON DATING(Very Flawed SCIENCE)SHOWED SIMILAR EVENTS. THIS AREA IS W/IN A REASONABLE DISTANCE OF THE INDIAN OCEAN AND MUST BE SEEN. NOT FAR W/I 5 HOUR OF PERTH W.A. MY SON IS NOW A CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS MAJOR AT MURDOCH UNIVERSITY NEAR PERTH.
"MY SON IS NOW A CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS MAJOR AT MURDOCH UNIVERSITY NEAR PERTH."
Good for him. It seems likely that he will actually learn some chemistry and physics. Then he will learn how mistaken your nonsensical beliefs really are.
For me it is much easier to "believe" in I.D. than it is in "Darwinism". There are far fewer problems. There is no way to prove either ID or Darwinism using the scientific method since neither can be experimentally recreated in a laboratory.
catkins314
"since neither can be experimentally recreated in a laboratory."
You have a much too limited view of the nature of "science".
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.