Ben Stein’s New Documentary, A Long Overdue Expose’
Posted: Thursday, March 13, 2008
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
Ben Stein, although undergoing criticism and not so subtle ridicule, plans to release a documentary this spring entitled " Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". I do hope that all Americans will see this documentary. Not only to support Stein for putting it before the public but to see the exposure of the abuse and obstruction of freedom of speech being put forth by those who teach naturalism for the existence of the universe, origin of life and the evolution of it all. These conniving atheistic scientists who have gained positions of authority within their community have lost all scruples when it comes to defending their scam. If any of their own puts forth even a hint of doubt concerning the absurdity of their stances, he finds himself blackballed. One must either follow the prescribed doctrines or he is in danger of loss of his job, destruction of his reputation, etc.
I have written a previous article about the infighting in the scientific community and of their fraudulent methods. Even the nation of China has clamped down on their scientists for fraudulent activities. The U.S. and European nations should do the same.
Some hard shelled atheistic scientists were interviewed and apparently made remarks that they now wish they had not. It will be interesting to see what all has been said and just what punishment will be dished out for it. That is the dilemma they are facing now. Will they be able to take drastic action against those who have let a kitten or two out of the bag? Especially when that is what the documentary is aboutthat of underhanded disciplinary action against those of their own who "mess up".
He even interviewed Richard Dawkins, the British evolutionary biologist who is perhaps the worlds most renowned atheist. He loathes the idea of God, and has reportedly admitted that life may have been started by a designer but if so, by some more evolved being from another planet, not God. His zeal for the imaginary evolutionary process is no doubt from his abhorrence for deity.
Atheistic evolutionists are renowned for saying that those of us who accept the evidence for an almighty God do so in blind faith without the evidence. Which is absolutely untrue. There is massive evidence for the existence of God, but rather, they are the ones whose ideas are based on nothing but stubborn blind faith. I would like to give you a couple of quotes for consideration of whose faith is baseless.
"Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation." (Pagel M. [Research fellow, Department of Zoology and Hertford College, Oxford University], "Happy accidents?" Review of "The Pattern of Evolution" by Niles Eldredge, W.H. Freeman 1999. Nature, Vol 397, 25 February 1999, p.665)
"...the second law of thermodynamics states that for irreversible processes in any closed system left to itself, the entropy (loss of available heat energy) will increase with time; thus the universe, viewed as such a system, is moving to the condition of maximum entropy (heat death): but (and this is the significant aspect of the matter for our purposes) if the irreversible process had begun an infinite time ago-if, in other words, the universe were untreated and eternal-the earth would already have reached maximum entropy; and since this is not the case, we are driven to the conclusion that the universe is indeed contingent and finite, and requires a creative force from the outside to have brought it into existence." (Montgomery, John Warwick * [Dean and Professor of Law, Simon Greenleaf School of Law, California], ed., "Christianity for the Tough Minded: Essays in Support of an Intellectually Defensible Religious Commitment," [1973], Bethany House: Minneapolis MN, 1982, reprint, p26)
"This notion of species as `natural kinds' fits splendidly with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz even argued that species are God's individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are "instituted by the Divine Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking." But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature? Both Darwin and Lamarck struggled with this question and did not resolve it to their satisfaction. Both denied to the species any status as a natural kind." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], "A Quahog is a Quahog," in "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History," [1980], Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, pp.170-171)
I also list below several URL's which list many of the hundreds of such quotes that are available on the internet. I only hope that this new documentary will have the proper effect to snap many out of the delusion that all scientists are brilliant and honest. Science is a magnificent blessing to the world. Deceitful and unethical men who propose simple ideas as scientific theories or fact, are not.
Addendum: The documentary opened today (4-18-2008) at movie theaters nationwide. My wife and I went to the 11:40 A. M. matinee. It is well worth your time. Don't miss it and encourage all the young folks to attend.
New Url for Commentors http://www.soulcare.org/Creation/EvolutionQuotes.html
http://www.ooblick.com/text/evoquotes.html
http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm
http://www.evidenceofgod.com/append.PDF
This Article has been viewed 813 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsThis is so awful that I'm embarrassed to share my first name with you!It is awful, you have my permission to change your name. I rather like mine.
"There is no simple DNA and there is no way it could have developed accidentally" Whilst I of course agree with you that DNA is never "simple", to say "there is no way it could have developed accidentally" or, as you seem to be implying, "there is no way it could have developed via natural selection", that is false. This point sounds like an argument from incredulty. I also contend your twisting of "If scientists cannot disprove something, you say, then it becomes more probable that it is fact. The Holy Bible has been tested, attacked, burned, and cursed for around 2,000 years and has not been disproved...so how come you pass it off as worthless?". There are two different kinds of thing that cannot be disproven. a) facts of the world which cannot be disproven because they are inaccurate. b) "teapot in orbit" claims that cannot be disproven because of the "Moving the goalposts" fallacy. I would also like to point out that creationism is not science, and yet you try to speak in terms of evidence and proof? Do you take a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, and change it based on the conclusions of your test? No. You said yourself the Holy Bible has remained unchanged and unchallenged for 2,000 years (which is in itself false thanks to numerous mistranslations and contradictions). This is not science, it is attempting to twist evidence to fit your pre-determined doctrine. I have about a million other points, but as you have already made crystal clear in your replies to other comments along the lines of mine, you have no interest at all in investigating any evidence is put before you: "It makes little difference what current scientific misunderstanding does or does not claim." I bet if science started claiming there was a god who created the universe you'd leap to its defence. You logic is flawed and blinkered, and you ask above about evidence for macroevolution: unfortunatly this is impossible to show to a creationist whose mind is already closed. Macroevolution is a convinient thing for you as once again you incoporate a "moving the goalposts" startegy and ALWAYS flatly deny that whatever evidence is before your eyes is false. An interesting article but certainly not accurate in any sense of the word.
PS: I do apologise though for some dodgy spelling on my part there. For example "There are two different kinds of thing that cannot be disproven. a) facts of the world which cannot be disproven because they are inaccurate" should be "accurate" instead of "inaccurate"Luke, you continue to make remarks as fact but give nothing to prove them. And I did not say the Bible was unchanged or unchallenged. I just said it had not been disproved. There are some translations of the Bible which are filled with errors.
'"You fail to explain where the miniscule "singularity" originated' - indeed, I cannot explain for sure where it originated. However, there are a number of possibilities. There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know everything, that's one of the parts of the scientific method that makes your implication that science is arrogant look a little unfounded. "Then you say that if external creator were able to control the universe, it would not be a closed system. Who ever said that He controls it? " Well, I certainly didn't. I said if the creator could *influence* the universe. Do you deny the creator can influence the universe? If yes, then the Bible is shown to be false as it describes many direct influences of the creator in the universe. If no, my original point stands. " You have no answers as to the beginning or those other things which you classify rightly as hypotheses. But a Creator answers them all. Sorry." Well, I do have some answers, but I'm not sure they are right yet. But even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean goddidit. A creator as an explanation for the universe just pushes us back to needing an explanation for the creator. As to evidence of 'macroevolution' (by which you presumably mean speciation), there's a lot. Speciation has been observed. Some evidence here: evolution berkeley edu evositeevo101 VC1fEvidenceSpeciation and here: talkorigins org faqs faq-speciation and here: nature com nature journal v441 n7097 abs nature04789 as to your argument that the Bible is a worthwhile source of truth because it has been around for a long time and tested, this fails on two obvious levels. Firstly, it has failed the tests. It contains numerous self-contradictions (skepticsannotatedbible com contra by_name html for collection of the more obvious ones), and is at odds with observed reality and with contemporary morality (where, for example, genocide is frowned upon rather than sometimes given divine blessing). Secondly, the Qur'an and other non-Christian religious texts have been around a long time as well. Your argument applies to them just as strongly as it does to Christianity Since you seem to accept microevolution, what do you believe is the mechanism that prevents this becoming speciation over time?Speciation has not been observed. The mechanism that makes me reject macroevolution is that there are changes which cannot take place as does microevolution. Different hearts, lungs, etc. just don't occur. Go read my article "Can Biblical Inerrancy Be Proven? A Challenge" and then write one, disproving it. We are using far too much space here and these little stabs at each other are getting us nowhere. You won't believe anything I say and I certainly will not believe anything you cannot back up with proof. And you can't.
"Well, I can see that we are at odds here. You say there is an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence for evolution through natural selection and absolutely none for Intelligent Design. I contend the exact opposite. I'm right, you're wrong. So show me the proof for your contention. And I don't want to hear that you are speaking of changes within a species. any 8 year old kindergarten drop out knows that. Show me ONE item of proof of macroevolution." Off the top of my head? What, the right fossils placed in the right rock strata isn't enough? Well, I'm not an expert on the subject, but perhaps you should take a look at the quite considerable body of literature on the subject? "If scientists cannot disprove something, you say, then it becomes more probable that it is fact. The Holy Bible has been tested, attacked, burned, and cursed for around 2,000 years and has not been disproved...so how come you pass it off as worthless? Sorry" You're joking right?No there are no right fossils in the right strata. and no, I'm not kidding. I'll tell you as I did Ben, just above yours, go read my article "Can Biblical Inerrancy Be Proven? A Challenge" And it does not cover even a tiny portion of the evidences.
Speciation has been observed, I included links,but they might not have worked - no matter, evidence of speciation is common and a simple google search for "evidence of speciation" will demonstrate the falseness of your assertion that speciation has not been observed. The evidence available is from numerous reputable sources. However, since you flatly reject evidence presented to you, without justification, further discussion is, as you suggested, pointless, albeit not for the reasons you gave. Thank you for your time!
"No there are no right fossils in the right strata." Haha. Nice assertion
Joel, Immigration and Scripture. Those are the two topics that get people going. I admire you for tackling one. You will have people coming from all over cyberspace to offer their views, and some not so nicely, but I think you already know that. For what it is worth, I stand with you.Thanks, JL. I needed that. They've been on a rampage today. But they don't bother me that much. I have had dialogues with atheists in letters to the editor of our daily paper for years. They usually won't read what you ask them to. I have almost 200 quotes from evolutionists who admit they have nothing to back up their claims, yet they believe the proof will come. It's been 150 years and millions of fossils since Darwin and they still have no links between species. They are not missing links. They are non-existing links. I appreciate your remarks.
As to "DNA could not have developed accidentally", by the way, you might find the following interesting. It demonstrates how information gain works in genetic control systems via the natural selection process: lecb ncifcrf gov/~toms/paper/ev/
talkorigins /faqs/faq-transitional (you will have to remove the spaces again, am afraid)
Just a quick link to a short list of some of the transitional fossils that have been discovered. You keep emphasising, and I noticed in your "Can Bible inerrancy be proven?" article as well, that evolutionists have "None". Well here's a massive list for you. It isn't the most comprehensive list in the world but it is pretty well done and it was easy to find.
Given the rarity of an event that a creature actually leaves behind a fossil I would say this is pretty impressive. Obviously there are gaps, but that is because if EVERY creature that died was fossilized, we would be up to the ears in fossils. It is, however, an extremely rare event. If you don't consider the fossils on this list transitional fossils, then may i ask why not? And what WOULD you consider a transitional fossil?Well, not those. Here is a quote from one of your very prominent evolutionists.
A quote from Dr. Niles Eldredge sums up the facts pretty well: "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures." (Evolution Is A Farce, CSTNews)
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.