Select Page

Ben Stein’s new film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed will be released in February. Ben Stein seems an unlikely candidate for this film in some ways. He doesn’t repudiate Darwin and indicates that Darwinism has some value but Darwinism can’t explain everything. It seems that Ben may have signed on to make the prevailing scientific and political bigotry more publicly known. “Expelled” has already generated a fair amount of controversy as can be seen in the September 27, 2007 New York Times article “Scientists Feel Miscast in Film On Life’s Origin” and numerous blogs. The Times demonstrates its lack of journalistic neutrality on this issue as we read:

There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And while individual scientists may embrace religious faith, the scientific enterprise looks to nature to answer questions about nature.

Although Ben Stein attributes some value to Darwinism the Times article picked up on something from Stein that we and others have written on before:

He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called ”From Darwin to Hitler.”

We touched on this in “Advancing a Culture of Sacrifice”. Advocates of Darwinism have been good at aggressively promoting their ideas since Charles Darwin introduced them. The Times caveat statement “an idea common among creationist thinkers” displays the inability, unwillingness or lack of knowledge about the influence of Darwinism on Hitler and Germany’s leadership. It is much easier to demean those whom you regard as intellectually inferior than to have to answer their challenges. In actuality, that is to be expected. All of us tend to view all worldviews that compete with our own as not credible and perhaps even insipid. Clearly we are viewed as boring and not as enlightened as the cutting edge scientific naturalists by holding to the age old idea that an uncaused cause pre-existed everything that came to be (creation). Darwinists and Darwinian social engineers have done well to advance their cause in culture. They fought hard to get their teaching into schools as a possible explanation of origins even going to court in 1925 in what is now known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. It is clear in the reading of the trial transcript that Clarence Darrow was working to have the teaching of evolution taught in school alongside or as another possible explanation of origins. When Darrow was arguing to have a banner that read “Read your Bible” removed from the court he said:

Let me say something. Your honor, I just want to make this suggestion. Mr. Bryan says that the Bible and evolution conflict. Well, I do not know, I am for evolution, anyway. We might agree to get up a sign of equal size on the other side and in the same position reading, “Hunter’s Biology,” or “Read your evolution.” This sign is not here for no purpose, and it can have no effect but to influence this case, and I read the Bible myself–more or less–and it is pretty good reading in places. But this case has been made a case where it is to be the Bible or evolution, and we have been informed by Mr. Bryan, who himself, a profound Bible student and has an essay every Sunday as to what it means. We have been informed that a Tennessee jury who are not especially educated are better judges of the Bible than all the scholars in the world, and when they see that sign, it means to them their construction of the Bible. It is pretty obvious, it is not fair, your honor , and we object to it….

While arguing for evolution to be taught in school in addition to or along side of the biblical view he spent time painting those who believed in the biblical accounts as uneducated or less than educated, religious bigots. This theme has continued at the colleges and universities from that time until today. They managed to shape bigotry to favor Darwin’s views and hold any who question in utter contempt. By the late 1960s their forces had so pervaded the institutions which train our politicians, educators, journalists and scientists that they were then able to better target the children largely unencumbered by parental interference. In the late 1960s the Supreme Court ruled that a school system could not ban the teaching of evolution from their classrooms. Then the process for banning the teaching of any form of creation was on the move. By the early 1980s only one view of origins could be taught in the public schools of the nation. Through this period of time they have also used the print media and films to enculturate society to their views.

In the process bringing about the replacement of worldviews the control of language and definitions was taken by the pro-Darwinian side. Science was redefined to mean that only a naturalist view of the world is legitimate and informed. Questions about nature can only be legitimately answered by natural means and mechanisms within nature. Any evidence to the contrary must be ruled out as meager attempts by uneducated and uninformed religious bigots to confuse others into embracing superstitious beliefs to answer life’s big questions. If one must believe in a miracle along the way they are simply written off as subscribing to a “God of the gaps.” With the new definition of science firmly ensconced in the vocabulary of culture devout Darwinists like the New York Times feel comfortable in making statements like, “There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.”

Let’s think about this for a moment though. What is a miracle? William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes Trial said, “A miracle is a thing performed beyond what man can perform.” The Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary gives as a definition, “a fortunate happening that has no obvious natural cause or explanation.” Not a bad definition actually and exposes Darwinists as religious zealots who must appeal to Darwin of the gaps as we ask the big questions such as:

In the beginning was nothing which suddenly exploded into everything (the big bang). What caused the explosion? How did everything form from nothing and by nothing? Can you give examples of chaos and disorganization through unintelligent, unguided, time plus chance scenarios in to organization or are these occurrences “a fortunate happening that has no obvious natural cause or explanation”?

How did we go from “A” sexual reproduction to male/female sexual reproduction. What were the steps and mechanisms and what function did each of the components which now comprise the male reproductive system and the female reproductive systems perform along the way since they were useless for reproduction prior to all components being in place. Or was this “a fortunate happening that has no obvious natural cause or explanation.”?

In truth Darwinists are relying on a whole series of miracles in order to disallow the claims of the miraculous of those who would call their new definition of science in to question. They cannot answer these big questions but instead appeal to the “powerful” answers that Darwinism seems to provide on a small level and believe (have faith?) that big gaps in the answers to the really big quesitons will one day be answered by Darwinism. In other words, Darwin of the Gaps is their answer and anyone who dares question them will be banished from academia, journalism or anywhere that may influence how culture thinks about the religion of Darwinism.

Link partner: pokerseri autowin88 vegasslot77 mantra88 ligasedayu warungtoto luxury138 luxury777 bos88 bro138 sky77 roma77 zeus138 batman138 dolar138 gas138 ligaciputra babe138 indobet rtp zeus luxury333 ligagg88