Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Entertainment > Movie|Fri, Apr. 04 2008 07:45 PM EDT

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release

By Alexander J. Sheffrin|Christian Post Correspondent

As the pro-intelligent design documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” makes its way to select audiences, its producers worry that intelligent design opponents may try to sabotage it even before the official release date.

Among a list of major concerns is that opponents may try to damage the film’s reputation through word of mouth before it reaches audiences later this month, or release bootleg copies in an attempt to destroy the film’s commercial value.

That seemed close to happening when two vocal atheist scientists, Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers, attempted to sneak in a screening two weeks ago in March.

While Myers was promptly recognized and denied entry to the event, Dawkins was allowed entry because of what producers called his “honorable” reputation.

Both men, however, were equally critical of the film’s contents.

Dawkins – who along with Myers is among the scientists interviewed in the film – used the opportunity after the screening to criticize what he said was the use of quotes and segments out of context for a film that he had believed would be pro-evolution.

Myers also criticized the film in his blog later that day despite the fact that he was not present for the screening.

“Apparently, a standard tactic is to do lots of fast cuts between biologists like me or Dawkins or Eugenie Scott and shots of Nazi atrocities. It's all very ham-handed. The audience apparently ate it up, though. Figures. Christians have a growing reputation for their appreciation of dishonesty," Myers wrote.

In the movie, actor Ben Stein explores the long-standing controversial debate between supporters of Darwinism and proponents of intelligent design. Through interviews with experts and professors from both camps, he discovers an elitist scientific establishment that punishes the scientific proponents of intelligent design because they reject some of the claims of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

“If you just stand up and question Darwinism – that’s it – your career is over,” Caroline Crocker, a former biology teacher at George Mason University, shared in the film's trailer.

She is among several professors featured in the film who claims they were ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for discussing problems with Darwinism.

Dawkins and Myers, along with scientist Eugenie Scott, allege they were tricked into being interviewed for the film. Premise Media Corporation, the makers of the film, however, have denied any wrongdoing.

"There is some serious mistreatment and downright reprehensible behavior going on here,” said Executive Producer Walt Ruloff, “but I can assure you it's not coming from us.

“We're just the ones exposing it.”

More recently, producers of the film bumped head with Myers when the biologist crashed a private teleconference for the film last Friday.

Myers used the opportunity to speak at length of the "the falsehoods propagated in the film" before he was asked to sign off by the producers.

In his blog later that day, Myers gave his own version of the incident, writing that the producers were ignorant in believing that racism and anti-Semitism were products of Darwinism.

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is currently set to be given a wide release on April 18.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:36 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

    GeorgeX: And you expect anyone who makes a movie like that to actually be intellectually honest? Please.

  • Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:35 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    The Geological Society of London is the oldest national learned society for the Earth sciences in the world, and embodies the collective knowledge of nearly 10,000 Earth scientists worldwide. On their behalf it wishes, during the United Nations International Year of Planet Earth, to place on record the following facts as being long established beyond doubt.

    Planet Earth, along with the other planets in the Solar System, was formed approximately 4560 million years ago.

    Life has existed on Earth for thousands of millions of years. It has evolved into its current form by a combination of genetic variation and natural selection - and is likely to go on doing so for as long as it continues to exist.

    Close study of the structure and organisation of living animals and plants clearly indicates their common ancestry, and the succession of forms through the fossil record, as well as the genetic record contained in every living organism, provides powerful evidence of the reality of evolution.

  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    True fact: there is a blog for the Expelled movie which is controlled by the producers of the Expelled movie. The moderators of the Expelled blog have been changing the comments of some people (including myself) who are critical of the movie. This is extremely unethical and dishonest.

  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:52 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    Star said: You can know what God thinks by reading His Word.
    But you wildly interpret His word like everyone else. Case in point, your explanation of the passage in Mark I mentioned. If scripture was meant to be taken literally then why the need for the semantic, scriptural gymnastics?

    And thank you for the apology - apology accepted! :)

  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    I believe that no one who believes in the Bible has any sense or wisdom compared with me, in accounting for the Creation of the world and all the creatures in it. (All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877)

    “The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens” (Pr 3:19).

    “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6).

    “…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).

  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72

    I tried to address your recent post to me on Obama Promises..... artical but it keeps getting flagged. I think it is dongard who is doing the flagging. So I will post my comments here.

    If you had read a little more carefully what I wrote accusing you of having flagged my post on Saturday night and Sunday night you would have seen that I accused you for the one on Saturday night and even though I accused you for the one on Sunday night I suggested it could also have been dongard instead who did it.

    I now believe that the one on Sunday night was not done by you but by dongard.

    The Saturday night one I had different reason to believe it was you. I flagged myself twice to make corrections to what I said. I noticed that you flagged yourself once and I had a post that was flagged that was an answer to a statement you made in your post that you flagged.

    When people flag themselves, CP removes those flags quite quickly. Since the two flags I did of myself was removed quite quickly with the flag of your post I reasoned that you are the one who flagged your own post. The flag of my Saturday night post that I did not flag stayed for quite a long time before CP removed it. I only assumed that you flagged me Saturday night because of the discussion and how it seemed to have bother you in some kind of way.

    You said that you did not flag me Saturday night nor on Sunday. I will take you at your word. I apologize for having accused you.

  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72

    Part 1

    Re:Star: And do you also accept by faith Mark 16:17-18?: "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."


    Hebrews 11:6 - "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

    I accept by faith Mark 16:17-18 . In my walk with God I am an eye witness to the following: 1) in my name shall they cast out devils, 2) they shall speak with new tongues, 3) they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

    However, I have not yet been an eye witness to 1) they shall take up serpents, 2) if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.

    I am Pentecostal. I believe that the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence in speaking in other tongues is for today every bit as much as it was in the early Church.

    I have attended many Pentecostal Churches. Three of them I attended on a regular basis, each for a number of years. All operated in the gifts of the spirit including healings, tongues, prophecies, deliverance, and etc. However, no Pentecostal Church that I have ever been to handles snakes or drinks poison to prove their faith in God. In thier thinking as well as mine to do so would be pure foolishness.

  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72

    Part 2

    In regard to "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not huirt them".

    Based on your statement,"I doubt it, otherwise you'd be dead." I take it that you believe that one would have to on a voluntary basis and with purpose drink poison or handle a venemous snake so that they could prove their faith in God. I don't believe that this is what Jesus is talking about. To do so would be to tempt God and we are not to tempt the Lord our God (Deu 6:16).

    An example of what Jesus was talking about in Mark 16:18 is the incident that happened to the Apostle Paul on the Island of Melita. See Act 28:1-10 for what happened to Paul there and what God did through Paul for the poeple of the island.

    Acts 28:3-6 - gives the particular incident of the viper biting Paul without consequence:

    3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

    4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, ...

    5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.

    6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him..."

    Here we see that the Apostle Paul did not willfully handle a snake to prove his faith in God but he was bit accidentally by a snake. God protected him as if it never happened. I am sure this opened a door for the Apostle Paul to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified to the people. God did many miracles of healing through Paul on that Island. The miracles that God did for Paul and through Paul were the kinds of things that Jesus said would follow a believer (Mark 16: 17-18)

    The same kinds of miracles are for believers today.

  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    ifeelfine72

    Re:I can't believe you presume to know what God thinks.

    You can know what God thinks by reading His Word. He doesn't conceal His identity, nor what He thinks, nor how He interacts with His creation, nor what He requires of people, nor His blessings for obedience, nor His judgments against all that disobey Him.

    Re: It is you that doesn't hold a Biblical position and you that is a spokesperson for satan

    I have scripture to back up what I say. You do not. All you offer is the wisdom of man.

  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:35 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    Howard;
    For example, Collins has seen molecular evidence with his own eyes. He has seen what no creationist has ever seen.
    Answer; Collins has seen evidence and made a scientistic (naturalism) interpretation. Big deal...evolutionists do this all the time. They seem to come apart when an IDer or Creationist interprets the same evidence and develop different answers.

    Creationists don't do research. Also, they know virtually nothing about DNA, especially not compared to Collins (and thousands of other scientists).
    Answer; Your assertion is false, imaginative and quite inflammatory. You may want to step away from Meyers or Dawkins blogs and really investigate what IDers and Creationists know and do. But then again, according to your religious belief, they can not be "real" scientists unless they buy into the story of evolution.

    I'm amazed you would accuse Collins of having a bias, especially since he is one of the most famous religious scientists in history.
    You're correct that he is religious; heavily syncretized with the religion of Humanism and its foundation of scientism.

    Perhaps you should convince Dawkins, before me, about an intelligent designer. The scientism for evolution is very weak:
    Popular author and atheist Richard Dawkins tells Ben Stein in this film that there could have been a designer of life on earth, but it would have had to have been “a higher intelligence” that had itself evolved “to a very high level . . . and seeded some form of life on this planet.”

  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:16 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Cor34: Based on your response, its obvious you are weak on the sciences. Evolution has been observed - including macroevolution. Science isn't made up of opinions - its made up of hypotheses that can be tested and then either proven false or not.

    As for your second comments, that is a major logical fallacy. You don't have to believe in the other "evolutions" to understand biological evolution. I do agree with one thing you said, it is still God - just not a "God of the gaps" - and the process He used was evolution.

  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    To prove Darwin, you must prove the other 6 evolutions first.This will never be proven, Cosmic, Stellar, Chemical,Planetary, Organic, Macro. then the Micro, Only the seventh stage (micro) has been observed, and thats still acceptable anyway. the rest are assumed, and only theories exist for all. The odds of proving even one as accidental are beyond what even a Las Vegas gambler would wager. Even so, I cant see how evolution has a dispute with the Bible anyway, even if proven, its still likely God

  • Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Why do some assume because we dont comply with the forced belief in Evolution its an automatic assumption that we are weak in the sciences. Has it become a dictatorship that we cannot in fact have our own opinions on life. I cannot see how billions of accidents in the universe and life itself are any more beleivable than an intelligent creator as God. I will have my own opinions and not be forced to comply with Science or educational systems dictatorial designs on my mind. Thats not Science, thats ignorance of our rights , and our mental abilities to choose. Dont attempt to stifle mans choices for Science or government.

  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Star: And do you also accept by faith Mark 16:17-18?: "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

    I doubt it, otherwise you'd be dead.

    I can't believe you presume to know what God thinks. It is you that doesn't hold a Biblical position and you that is a spokesperson for satan. I'm sure satan is enjoying it but not for reasons that you state, but because he knows that you are driving people from the faith and closer to him.

  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    ifeelfine72,

    I rarely have anything good to say about Christians, but I have to congratulate you. If there is any hope for the future of American progress, it's Christians like yourself who stand up to the creationists who are only interested in getting in the way of progress.

    Thank you and please keep up the good work. You give me hope for our country's future.

  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    ifeelfine72

    God tells us in His Word how He created everything. He created everything by speaking it into existence over a very short period of time. Everything was created in its mature state. Do we understand it? No. But we accept it by faith.

    Heb 11:3 - "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

    Evolution assumes that everything started out in its infant state and took billion and millions of years to come into existence. The theory of evolution is in direct opposition to the word of God.

    God decides what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Sorry, but man including you don't get to. God says in His Word that gay sex is an abomination (Lev 18:22, 20:13) and all who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

    You do not hold to a Biblical position. Your mind has been tainted by the wisdom of man. You are a great spokesman for Satan.

    When are you going to surrender what you believe to God and allow Him to transform your thinking to align itself with the Word of God so that you will know what is the good, acceptable, and perfect will of God is? (Romans 12:2)

    Satan has hijacked the Christian faith through people like you and he is loving it.
    (I flagged myself)

  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    Listenthink: How would YOU define macroevolution?

    Hawk49: You are willfully ignorant. I cannot stand people like you who are so afraid of science. Tell me if someone could convince you that evolution was true (which if you just look at the evidence, you would know it is), would that diminish your faith? People like you make me sick because you do reduce God to a God of the gaps - its not evolution that marginalizes God, its people like you. I can promise you that with all this ranting and raving about evolution being false, you are doing more harm to Christianity than good - I know that for a fact. How do I know? Because when I talk to people and tell them I'm a Christian and am talking to them about my faith and what's its done in my life, they inevitably ask two questions: Do you (and God) hate gay people and do you believe evolution. They typically laugh about the second one - especially the educated ones. So if you want to know why I'm so angry at folks like you and Star and others that's it! I feel like Christianity has been hyjacked by folks like you and I'm hopping mad about it.

  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:05 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    The problem with world views is when people use their world view as an excuse to make statements about scientific evidence they know nothing about.

    My point is scientists do all the work, and the creationists, without ever bothering to understand important scientific discoveries, say the scientist is wrong. It doesn't matter if the scientist is the best and most productive scientist in the world. According to the creationist the scientist's work is for nothing because he has a bias.

    I respectfully suggest the creationists are full of it. They don't know what they're talking about. They should not say "my world view is different so I translate the evidence differently" without knowing anything about the evidence.

    For example, Collins has seen molecular evidence with his own eyes. He has seen what no creationist has ever seen. Creationists don't do research. Also, they know virtually nothing about DNA, especially not compared to Collins (and thousands of other scientists). I'm amazed you would accuse Collins of having a bias, especially since he is one of the most famous religious scientists in history.

    Creationists keep forgetting a major difference between them and the biologists. The difference is the creationists are wrong and the biologists are right. The biologists don't think they are right. They know they are right. They are absolutely 100% certain all life living today evolved from common ancestors.

    Imagine somebody saying the earth is flat, and defends his insane flat earth idea by saying he has a different world view. There is absolutely no difference between a creationist and a flat-earther. They are both equally wrong.

  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Howard, welcome back;
    You have been studying the evolutionists' interpretations of evidence based on the belief of scientism. These interpretations are based on assumptions and extrapolations (ie: Collins stretching microevolution into macroevolution).

    The IDer or Creationist looks at the same evidence through the worldview of ID or creation and often develop differing conclusions than the evolutionist.

    These basic presuppostions can not be proven themselves; that is why they are presuppositional beliefs. The decision maker has to decide which interpretation makes the most sense to him based on his beliefs. Antony Flew is a perfect example of deciding the ID worldview matched reality closer than the scientism worldview and made the switch.

    "The power of a worldview
    A worldview is inescapable. Our worldview consists of our most basic assumptions (presuppositions) about reality. Our most foundational presuppositions (axioms) cannot be proved by something else (otherwise they would not be the most foundational), yet we hold them to be unquestionable. We use these assumptions (often without realizing it) to help us interpret what we observe in the world. We cannot avoid this; without a number of foundational presuppositions about reality we could not make sense of anything."

  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I believe that the common saying that one "cannot draw blood out of a stone" is the reverse of truth, and that not only bones, sinews, and life can be produced from them, but also, mind, reason, and the voice of conscience, which though would-be philosophers and atheists brave out in daylight, they are so horribly afraid of in the dark. (All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877)

    “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1).

    “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge” (Ps 19:1, 2).

    “…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).

  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    listenthink, I have been studying the evidence for evolution for several years. You haven't studied any science because you are lazy. Why don't you educate yourself? Are you afraid of science?

  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:00 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Willfully ignorant are those who just accept everything they have been spoon fed in public schools. Willful ignorance is to employ name calling and insults instead of presenting an actual basis for their beliefs. I'm assuming but feel free to prove me wrong that you know that your beliefs can't stand open debate. hide

  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:10 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "No pro-evolutionists are presenting scientific proofs that macrovolution is true."

    Why should anyone waste their time explaining science to the willfully ignorant? If you were really interested in the evidence for biological evolution you would have done your own research a long time ago.

  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:11 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Ladies and gentlemen. Why is it so hard for this to be a scientific discussion? No pro-evolutionists are presenting scientific proofs that macrovolution is true. All I see and read is ranting and screeming that intelligent design is religion. Those of us with the good sense to look at the science shouldn't be baited into a philosophical discussion when the science is good enough.

  • Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Methinks you protest too much:
    1..You'll have to ask the author of the article to get your first answer.
    2. You are entering an argument that will not be answered here as there are two sides of the issue and you only know the rhetoric from one side.

    "Mathis, who set up the interviews for Expelled, said the scientists who were interviewed were well-informed beforehand.

    “I went over all of the questions with these folks before the interviews and I e-mailed the questions to many of them days in advance,” said Mathis. “The lady [and gentlemen] doth protest too much, me thinks.”

    Expelled producers have asserted that film will portray the scientists interviewed in a way that is consistent with their actual viewpoints or other public statements."

  • Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:24 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Can someone explain the slanderous "Atheist Saboteurs" claim in the article title? Seems the author is obviously prejudiced against Dawkins and Myers, when all they attempted to do was legitimately attend a screening, just like dozens of other people. What "sabotage" was involved? Please clarify. Perhaps "lying" or "deception" would describe those involved in the film who obtained interviews under false pretenses. But apparently the Commandment about "bearing false witness" doesn't apply to Christians anymore. hide

  • Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:59 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    I believe that the tail of the giraffe has grown by degrees into a "fly-flapper" (!), although I cannot explain how the species did without it in previous countless ages before it grew to its present length, when, no doubt, there were just as many flies in those hot countries, if not more, than there are now.

    Source: All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877

    “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1).

    “O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens” (Ps 8:1).

    “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…” (Ps 14:1).

  • Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Oops,
    Another dogmatic professor forcing his religion upon others (or otherwise, fail):
    "The ACLJ said it is representing Gina DeLuca, a student who has been punished with lower grades and has been labeled "closed-minded" by a professor, who remained unidentified in the letter, because he demands that students acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in his philosophy class, which is required for graduation."

  • Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Howard,
    My dictionary, though it doesn't use the terms substantive and functional within the definition of 'religion' does have several variants; some incorporating the supernatural and others using just faith and belief systems without invoking the supernatural.. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

  • Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:17 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Howard; suit yourself, but realize the dictionary you use falls short of reality.

    A few of the doctrines from the atheistic Humanist Manifesto I:
    FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
    EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality ...
    THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations...

    American Humanist Association
    Also Known As: AHA
    1777 T St NW
    Washington, DC 20009
    Who We Are
    The American Humanist Association is the oldest and largest Humanist association in the United States and serves as a primary voice of Humanism nationally.

    • This organization is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity .
    • This organization is not required to file an annual return with the IRS because it is a religious organization.
    • Additional narrative information in this report was last supplied by the organization on July 24, 2007.

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I think all religions are childish nonsense, therefore I'm religious.

    I can't imagine anything more boring than this worthless discussion about your refusal to use a dictionary.

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Howard;
    Give the two definitions some more thought and you should be able to sort it out.

    Using the functional definition there should be no mistake that all people have established an overarching belief system known as a religious worldview. It is religious (functional) as it is based on beliefs.

    Using the substantive definition where religion (substantive) is based upon a supernatural being(s) then there will be non-religious people and religious people. These non-religious (substantive) people, however, still have a religious (functional) worldview.

    That's how the founders of humanism, the AHA, the Supremes determined that the atheistic humanism is a religion.

    If you truly want to better understand yourself you may want to read and try to understand David Noebel's Understanding the Times; The Religious Worldviews of Our Day and the Search for Truth. I recommend his 1st edition.

  • dude »
    Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    cont from previous post due to 3000 character limit...I am sorry that you take offense with the children analogy but if there is a God that is what we are in comparison. So once again if I have a young child with a metal implement playing around an electric outlet and I warn that child that if he sticks it into the outlet he shall surely die and do nothing to interfere with that childs freewill and it is killed I am covered by your statement. I have warned the child of an impending doom that he has nothing other than my comments to base an understanding on and I have used simple language the child can understand so the child is the guilty party here, right? That is the basic argument you use here as well.

  • dude »
    Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Zenodaddy stated
    "Dude,

    'A perfectly just man who had the power to intercede would not allow small children to be raped and murdered if he had the power to intercede.'

    Such a flawed argument. Always using children as the example for how bad things can get. Children being raped and murdered is horrible, I agree. I wish that no child would ever face this kind of thing, yet, where is your story about parents killing their children or the mom's who choose to murder their child before they are even born?

    Bad things do happen to people all the time. When people, who have free will and choices to make, do these types of things, they get what is coming to them. To say that bad things happening to decent people (notice how I did not call them 'good') calls for the non-existence of God leaves out the other side of the equation... the evil itself.

    To have evil you must have an originator of evil, and to have good you must have an originator of good. We each have the capacity to do either, most of us choose the latter in various degrees. Sure, Sure... we give to those in need, we help those around us every once in a while, but these are generally done not to help the other person, but to make ourselves feel better somehow.

    This is where free will comes into play. We have a choice, each of us. This is called Freedom. We have the Freedom to do good, or the opposite. We have the same choice to turn to God or to reject Him. If God interceded in everything and caused everything to not happen that would happen none of us would have a choice and none of us would learn from our experiences.

    Using children is a low blow. No sane person wants bad things to happen to children. Yes, God sees all, hears all, and guess what... experienced all. The same way God doesn't shield us from everything is the same way we cannot shield our children from everything, even when they get older.

    I suggest you read, 'Mere Christianity'... it answers this accusation and many more. To recognize evil and yet reject the good is just asinine"



    Oh please, zenodaddy, The argument is not flawed. You have not refuted it but chose to focus on something else, that humans act human and exercise freewill. So let me refute the idea that the divine will not impact humanity's freewill. BTW, I am copying an argument from Ebonmusings, as it counters the "freewill argument" in a nicely concrete form. Actually I will have to hotlink due to the 3000 character limitation. http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/divineblackmail.html cont...

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Unfortunately, there are those who walk in the Darwin faith. May such be rescued from that false faith, and embrace the words of Jesus, “Have faith in God” (Mk 11:22).

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:45 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    That's the point Quecat...the concept is biblical and it did not come from humanity. The ONE and ONLY GOD made this known about himself well before mankinds physicists discovered that there are mathmatically about 11 dimensions in reality. Humanity only understands and operates in a three-dimensional world of (Length * Width * Height). The God of the Bible reveals that He alone has the power of being within himself and transcends above all power, space, matter, and time in order to create and reveal Himself to those in a three-dimensional world. Just because we cannot wrap are carnal finite minds around omnipresence, eternality, or omniscience does not mean that such a capacity cannot by expressed through the Uncaused One who designed it all.

    http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    Wilderness: Why are you quote mining from a book that is 130 years old?

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    I believe that man, and all the animals, birds, fishes, reptiles, and insects in the world have descended from one single original, and not any of these from ancestors of their own kinds ; that the gnat and the elephant, the cat and the mouse, the bat and the butterfly, the whale and the ant, the toad and the swallow, the hare and the tortoise, the crocodile and the lamb, the humming-bird and the snake, the mole and the monkey, and then the man, are all one species and only one.

    Source: All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877

    “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps 14:1).

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:20 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    After you have investigated the facts and overwhelming evidence (as many former Atheist's had about Christ, the resurrection, and origins), you will begin to doubt your doubts about God and Christ. Any how, its superstitious for scientists to place such great faith in the improbable odds of random mutations and chance. Even the experiments conducted after the Miller Experiment which were "designed" to "recreate" scenarios used to explain how certain DNA proteins arose by chance actually demonstrated that 75% of the time intervention by the intelligent scientists were necessary to produce enantiomers that do not develop randomly in nature nor in the Miller Experiment. Like it or not, there is a shift occurring within the science community. For many years atheists and secular humanist had an oligarchy of power within academia and waged intimidation campaigns against any discovery or piece of evidence that may challenge the foundation of their worldview. They have become as the wizard of OZ demanding that the public not be allowed to see whats really behind the their black curtain of science-FICTION.

    http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:13 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    I BELIEVE that we are the people, and that wisdom shall die with us.

    I believe, I am ready to believe, anything- like the Infidel of old provided only it is not in the Bible.

    I believe that my theory of natural selection is right, and that every one who does not hold it is in the wrong, although the difficulties "are so grave, that to this day I can never reflect on them without being- staggered." (Darwin.}

    Source: All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877

    “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps 14:1).

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:07 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

    I also would add that we need to likewise get the religion of atheism of science as well. Dinesh D'sousa makes the interesting point that too many times atheism is maquarding itself as science.
    http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/04/07/atheism-masquerading-as-science/

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    If the characteristic of omnipresence is invalid - where did we even get the idea that someone or something had/has/will have the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every time, unfettered by the dimensions of time and space?
    Did the mind of man somehow conceive of an impossible and therefore nonexistent state of being?
    And if omnipresence IS a valid state of being, to whom or what does it belong?

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:20 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Actually it takes more faith to believe in a theory that purports to explain our existence while ignoring the ultimate origins of life.
    Evolutionists proudly crow that we all evolved, without being able to address what exactly it is that we evolved from. Primordial soup? A random chemical component from a passing meteor? And what's more, they insist that their utter ignorance of the beginning in no way impacts the validity of what they believe about what occurred 'after'.
    A casual perusal of abiogenesis and it's myraid 'maybe this' or 'maybe that's - goes to show that science is largely clueless.

    Can you wrap your mind around the concept of eternity? When did time begin? If it did begin at a distinct moment, who or what was it's catalyst? Who or what started the clock? And what existed prior to the beginning of time? Do you see the difficulty inherent in the very question?
    That mankind does not even have adequate words in his language to express timelessness only highlights our inability to even begin to grasp the concept. However, it is equally striking that though we have no way in which to intelligently express ourselves regarding the matter - we can still employ our imaginations and understand that such a state must exist/have existed/can yet exist.
    Who is the Unmoved Mover and where did that which He moved, come from?

    The answer is as plain as the scripture that He gave to us as a testament of Himself.

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    I don't accept biological evolution because I have faith it's the correct explanation for the diversity of life.

    I accept evolution because of the powerful and rapidly growing molecular evidence for it.

    The Resurrection requires faith, lots of faith.

    Scientific facts like biological evolution which are supported by evidence from many branches of science, evidence which has been accumulating for 150 years and continues to grow rapidly, does not require faith.

    Science is science, and religion is religion. These two completely different words should not be confused with each other. Science does not care what religion says. If a religion conflicts with a scientific fact, that's the religion's problem. Scientists could care less about ancient religious myths.

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:18 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Religion as defined by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:
    "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

    Yep - you're religious!

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    HAWK49: "you are religious"

    Non-religious people are religious?

    Do you also think a circle is a square?

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I flagged myself for typos - oops

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:25 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    The deluded man is a genius in his own mind. Everything that he sees around him is to him only further evidence of the correctness of his worldview. He's blissfully ignorant of the fact that he is locked within an institution of his own making - and utterly ignorant of the larger universe without.
    He observes the light emanating from the fixture in his room and tries to wrap his mind around how it is that it gives light. However once he's satisfied himself of the fact the light exists and perhaps even the scientific explanation of it's nature and method of operation, he cannot expand his mind to consider that the light had a maker for the simple fact that he is unable to observe anyone else in his little room. Therefore by his logic, the light must have come into existence and is sustained of it's own accord.

    Is he not deserving of derision who cannot fathom that someone must have created the light and sustains that light, even though he is currently unaware of how it is so or who that might be?
    Break free of your self-made prisonl Howard.

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:18 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Religious belief can be defined in one of two ways; substantive and functional. Your religious worldview is the functional variety; it's a belief system that establishes your values, motives and decisions. It's foundation is based on the philosophy of naturalism and uniformitarianism. Both unprovable assumptions that are used to tint the lenses of those attempting to make truth-claims from observations. My religious beliefs are founded on the reality of God's word.

    Your religious worldview is some form of humanism from what I have determined; secular or marxist or a variant between the two. The Supremes have classified humanism a religion. The AHA reports to the IRS as a religious organization. The founders of humanism called it the "new" religion. What's the big deal, you are religious and you have chosen to believe the truth claims from science. This is known as scientism
    Wolfgang Smith: "science is a doubled-edged sword. On the one hand there is scientific truth, a bona fide knowledge of a special kind; but that knowledge is accompanied in practice by a syndrome of philosophic assumptions which are generally mistaken for scientific truths. It became clear to me, moreover, in light of the metaphysical traditions, that these scientistic beliefs (as I call them) tend to be spurious, and deleterious to our spiritual well-being."

  • Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "The fundamentalists deny that evolution has taken place; they deny that the earth and the universe as a whole are more than a few thousand years old, and so on. There is ample scientific evidence that the fundamentalists are wrong in these matters, and that their notions of cosmogony have about as much basis in fact as the Tooth Fairy has."

    [Isaac Asimov, quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links