My parents, Chris, and I saw Ben Stein's movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed this afternoon. This documentary exposes the unscientific methods of academia in calling evolution fact and burying its head in the ground whenever an opposing view (Intelligent Design) is presented.
Artisically put together, this entertaining and thought-provoking documentary related the two camps to the Berlin Wall, because there is "academic freedom" only if you are on the right side of the wall. What that means is that if one proposes anything other than the prevalent view, one is ostrasized, persecuted, and "expelled" from academia (fired and prevented from future hiring). A case of this recently happened at my alma mater, where one of the university's (and my) most beloved professors was not tenured.
Having studied Darwin at Cambridge for a study-abroad course, I was glad to see him address the fact that the logical conclusion of the theory of evolution is eugenics and genocide. Hitler and the Nazi party were not crazy. Their practices of exterminating what nature would "select" anyway in order to create the perfect race are the rational applications of the evolution mindset. That's how horribly sad/dangerous/unethical this theory can be.
The pinnacle of the movie was Stein's interview with Richard Dawkins, scientist and author of The God Delusion. Dawkins, a raging atheist who claims that anyone who believes in a God is an idiot showed himself to be a complete idiot when asked about the beginning of life. The Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection does not account for the first living cell, just somewhat what happens after that living cell somehow came into existance. Dawkins said that it is a possibility that alien lifeform designed this living cell and brought it to Earth. No, I am not kidding. He actually thinks that believing in aliens is scientific. WOW. And even worse, after raging against "intelligent design", he himself stated that some intelligent being may have designed this single-cell organism and put it on Earth. But that "intelligent designer" must have itself evolved through some sort of Darwinian process. Or else it must have been placed wherever it was by some other evolved intelligent designer, in perpetuity... With all due respect, Mr. Dawkins, I think you are the one under delusion.
I wrote my paper (for my Cambridge course) on how Darwin intended to make science arreligious (without religion) - because before him, science was intended to discover God's revelation through creation - but what he did instead was change the religion of science from a judeo-christian endeavor to a Nature-and-therefore-SELF-as-God religion. Dawkins, as Darwin was before him, is not an unbiased scientist, but a self-centered man angry with God, and he would rather believe anything else designed the world as long as it is not a Righteous Judge who holds us accountable for our actions.
**Note on how these men do not follow the scientific method.
1)Darwin threw out evidence against his theory (I saw some of it with my own eyes). This is against the scientific method, because if something does not fit the theory, then the theory should change to fit the evidence, not vice versa.
2) "Scientists" consider Evolution (def: that all known life evolved from one single-cell organism) FACT. Most of the evolution-upholding scientists in the documentary called it such. In the scientific method, there is no fact; one should always consider a theory as something that has just not been disproved YET.
3) No one has ever successfully duplicated evolution, just like no one has ever duplicated the beginning. Therefore, it is nothing but a weak theory, maybe just hypothesis.
See this movie. I give it 2 (opposing) thumbs up.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
What you've all been waiting for... my rant on Joel
So I gave in to the temptation to watch Joel Osteen as I was getting ready for church. The practice has become routine, as our church service doesn't start till 11 and Joel comes on the tv at 9. I can't remember what the word is for a person's facination with what they abhor, but that word describes this Sunday morning ritual. I had never really known much about him or his teachings until a few months ago, but it didn't take long for me to start hurling household objects at our tv. As a huge fan of generalizations, I think I finally, today, put together why he is such a false teacher.
Let's see if I can make this make sense...
It comes as no surprise that Joel is part of the health/wealth/prosperity gospel craze, evidentally trying to instigate a resurge, since its era had fizzed due to all the scandals of Oral Roberts & co. Joel's daddy was huge in the movement, and, according to Joel, also boasted of no formal or seminary education.
I'm guessing that this is probably how all the health/wealth/prosperity gospel pastors opperated, but since I'm relatively young, it is baffling and attrocious. It occured to me today that what little from the Bible that Joel uses, he only uses as an allegory for how God wants us to be successful on earth. For example, a few weeks ago, he said that the virgin birth of Jesus means that we shouldn't let other men stand in our way, because Mary sure didn't let other men (or lack there-of) stand in the way of her dream. That is almost a direct quote! Now, asside from the fact that any moron could be fairly positive that having a baby outside of wedlock was NOT the dream of this good little Hebrew, what is missing here? A: What the birth of Christ actually means for history, prophesy, sinners, our understanding of God, HELLO?? He just used the prophesied virgin birth of the LORD of the universe to be a metaphor for how we should not let anyone get in the way of our debt (again, I'm almost quoting here), that we should let no one, not even our boss, get in the way of our promotion.
In today's "sermon", he so artfully related Jesus' experience on the cross and the few days before Galgotha to our times when we feel low. Jesus went through some pain, and so might we, but we just need to gut it out like He did was pretty much the message. He fell down when He was carrying His cross, and we might stumble too sometimes, but He had Simon to help Him out, and we'll have people to help us out too. oh how nice. And even when He was on the cross, He asked God to forgive those who had hurt Him, and we should do that too. And the best part is that He raised from the grave, just like he's going to raise us out of our debt/depression/low-paying job/flu/traffic jam/bad hair day. Isn't that wonderful???
Who had ever thought a sermon on Christ's sacrifice to pay for the sins of His chosen to satisfy a just God could be so "applicable" and completely meaningless. I can't believe that: 1)People actually listen to this yahoo, 2) He hasn't been struck by lightening yet, and 3)I didn't barf up my HoneyBunchesOfOats while watching this.
The fact that he makes so secular what is so sacred is completely appalling, that he makes people think that God is just an omnipresent genie that wants to make us happy in this life is so sickening, and that hundreds of thousands are led astray by his false teaching is so incredibly sad.
Let's see if I can make this make sense...
It comes as no surprise that Joel is part of the health/wealth/prosperity gospel craze, evidentally trying to instigate a resurge, since its era had fizzed due to all the scandals of Oral Roberts & co. Joel's daddy was huge in the movement, and, according to Joel, also boasted of no formal or seminary education.
I'm guessing that this is probably how all the health/wealth/prosperity gospel pastors opperated, but since I'm relatively young, it is baffling and attrocious. It occured to me today that what little from the Bible that Joel uses, he only uses as an allegory for how God wants us to be successful on earth. For example, a few weeks ago, he said that the virgin birth of Jesus means that we shouldn't let other men stand in our way, because Mary sure didn't let other men (or lack there-of) stand in the way of her dream. That is almost a direct quote! Now, asside from the fact that any moron could be fairly positive that having a baby outside of wedlock was NOT the dream of this good little Hebrew, what is missing here? A: What the birth of Christ actually means for history, prophesy, sinners, our understanding of God, HELLO?? He just used the prophesied virgin birth of the LORD of the universe to be a metaphor for how we should not let anyone get in the way of our debt (again, I'm almost quoting here), that we should let no one, not even our boss, get in the way of our promotion.
In today's "sermon", he so artfully related Jesus' experience on the cross and the few days before Galgotha to our times when we feel low. Jesus went through some pain, and so might we, but we just need to gut it out like He did was pretty much the message. He fell down when He was carrying His cross, and we might stumble too sometimes, but He had Simon to help Him out, and we'll have people to help us out too. oh how nice. And even when He was on the cross, He asked God to forgive those who had hurt Him, and we should do that too. And the best part is that He raised from the grave, just like he's going to raise us out of our debt/depression/low-paying job/flu/traffic jam/bad hair day. Isn't that wonderful???
Who had ever thought a sermon on Christ's sacrifice to pay for the sins of His chosen to satisfy a just God could be so "applicable" and completely meaningless. I can't believe that: 1)People actually listen to this yahoo, 2) He hasn't been struck by lightening yet, and 3)I didn't barf up my HoneyBunchesOfOats while watching this.
The fact that he makes so secular what is so sacred is completely appalling, that he makes people think that God is just an omnipresent genie that wants to make us happy in this life is so sickening, and that hundreds of thousands are led astray by his false teaching is so incredibly sad.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Students deserve better than easy
Maybe I'm a big nerd -- okay, maybe? -- but I can't help making connections, hypothesizing, philosophizing, evaluating and all that other level six stuff. While studying and taking the GRE (entrance into grad school exam), I couldn't help to feel ashamed at my lack of literary repertoire. Even as an English major and one who's thoroughly enjoyed reading (some of my best memories were spent up in the tree reading Hatchet, Boxcar Children, etc), I am clearly not what people who made this test would call well-read. I am not completely discouraged at this, since now I have a vast book list filled with items to grow my intellectual compasity and expand my understanding of the world and human endeavors (of good and evil).
What I connected this to, however, is the growing emphasis on young adult novels being adopted into my teaching curriculum. Just a small chunk of low-down-info, for the honors class I'm teaching next year, we are required to teach a teen novel. Right now, my fellow teachers from across the district and I are choosing one of three delightful little reads (sarcasm inserted). Now I'm not against teens reading teen novels by any means. What I am against is using valuable classroom time (of which I'm becoming more and more aware of its brevity) and valuable instruction time for kids - who choose to be in an honors class - to read something that they could easily read on their own time and could easily deduce the profound (sarcasm again) meanings without my help. The argument by the team who gave us this requirement for the teen novel is that the students need diversity, whether that diversity of old vs. new or hard vs. easy, I'm not sure. Maybe I'll find that out in meetings to come.
My arguments, keeping in mind my connection to the GRE, are the following:
1) Students who choose (as they do in our district) to be in an honors class are signing up for challenge and rigor. The object of most teen novels is to reach out to kids who usually don't like to read by giving them easy-to-understand storylines about topics that interest them. These kids should already like to read if they enroll in honors class, and therefore the purpose of the teen novel is a moot point.
2) There are so many great works out there that have stood the test of time because their themes and ideas are universal and long lasting. Teen novels are usually pretty narrowly focused and deal with current, selfish, or trite issues - hence the simplicity noted above. Teen novels usually aren't "real life" as their promoters say. They usually focus on the tough problems that plague maybe 3% of teens. And worse, they usually promote self-centeredness, which is so prevalent already that it should not be encouraged even more.
3) I want my kids to read something that will benefit them having read it. These future AP or IB students should have guided access to as many works as possible that will help them succeed. I remember when I was given an AP reading list of about 100 books in high school, I was overwhelmed because we only read like 3 in class, and so I was expected to read as many as I could on my own. When studying for the GRE, I was likewise overwhelmed at all the works and authors I was expected to know. Therefore, why not give these young scholars as much deep literature as we can while we have them under our guidance. I would much rather be able to help my students through Orwell's 1984 than expect them to read and understand it on their own time because I'd rather teach them something that is more fun, easy, and "applicable" to them.
Softening them up is preparing them for failure, or at least overwhelmedness, like me.
What I connected this to, however, is the growing emphasis on young adult novels being adopted into my teaching curriculum. Just a small chunk of low-down-info, for the honors class I'm teaching next year, we are required to teach a teen novel. Right now, my fellow teachers from across the district and I are choosing one of three delightful little reads (sarcasm inserted). Now I'm not against teens reading teen novels by any means. What I am against is using valuable classroom time (of which I'm becoming more and more aware of its brevity) and valuable instruction time for kids - who choose to be in an honors class - to read something that they could easily read on their own time and could easily deduce the profound (sarcasm again) meanings without my help. The argument by the team who gave us this requirement for the teen novel is that the students need diversity, whether that diversity of old vs. new or hard vs. easy, I'm not sure. Maybe I'll find that out in meetings to come.
My arguments, keeping in mind my connection to the GRE, are the following:
1) Students who choose (as they do in our district) to be in an honors class are signing up for challenge and rigor. The object of most teen novels is to reach out to kids who usually don't like to read by giving them easy-to-understand storylines about topics that interest them. These kids should already like to read if they enroll in honors class, and therefore the purpose of the teen novel is a moot point.
2) There are so many great works out there that have stood the test of time because their themes and ideas are universal and long lasting. Teen novels are usually pretty narrowly focused and deal with current, selfish, or trite issues - hence the simplicity noted above. Teen novels usually aren't "real life" as their promoters say. They usually focus on the tough problems that plague maybe 3% of teens. And worse, they usually promote self-centeredness, which is so prevalent already that it should not be encouraged even more.
3) I want my kids to read something that will benefit them having read it. These future AP or IB students should have guided access to as many works as possible that will help them succeed. I remember when I was given an AP reading list of about 100 books in high school, I was overwhelmed because we only read like 3 in class, and so I was expected to read as many as I could on my own. When studying for the GRE, I was likewise overwhelmed at all the works and authors I was expected to know. Therefore, why not give these young scholars as much deep literature as we can while we have them under our guidance. I would much rather be able to help my students through Orwell's 1984 than expect them to read and understand it on their own time because I'd rather teach them something that is more fun, easy, and "applicable" to them.
Softening them up is preparing them for failure, or at least overwhelmedness, like me.
Monday, April 7, 2008
"The idea of God has problems" for sinners
Today I caught a broadcast of the American Center for Justice on BOTT radio network, and Jay Sekulow was discussing a college student’s email. This college student is in an Intro to Philosophy course at a secular university, and her professor has created a class blog in which all students must participate. As I understood the broadcast (thought I didn’t catch the whole thing) the professor started the blog string with the statement “The idea of God has problems,” and I’m guessing that he wanted all the students to accent and show the problems or something. Weird. Anyway, knowing what I know now (because of course I didn’t back when I would’ve taken such a course), I tried to call in to share what I think she should do (which includes not dropping the class), but I was too late to get on the show – to the detriment of all. However, I tried to email Mr. Sekulow, and my email had to be confined to 50 words or less. MAN THAT IS REDICULOUSLY HARD TO DO. So, knowing that God has given me wisdom and experience to share, I requested that he come here to see my thoughts. I pray he does, because I humbly think my point of view on the prompt could really help this young lady defend and further the Faith. Here’s my full letter (before I chopped it to two sentences)…
Mr. SeKulow~
I am writing in response to the question posed by a listener today. A college student wrote you of her philosophy professor forcing a web discussion with “The idea of God has problems.” I hope I am correct in this, since I did not catch the entire broadcast. I am a recent grad of a secular university myself, and I know too well the affront our faith faces at this level by cynical professors and fellow students. However, the statement “The idea of God has problems” is not at all a declaration that one should denounce her faith, but on the contrary, I would argue that it is an excellent spring board for the gospel.
Now I don’t know what else the professor said or wrote to this student, but if this is the prompt for the discussion, I would love to encourage her to take it in this philosophical light: of course the idea of God causes problems, because the idea of something holy, perfect, and omniscient makes we people see that we are not those things (which is a huge problem for us, since we [especially philosophers] are so prone to think highly of ourselves). The very fact that we like to think well of ourselves (romantic views of human nature, etc.) brings us into conflict with something that so obviously shows us that not only are we not what we think we are, but we are also guilty of all kinds of evil and deserving of death and hell. The God Who is perfect likewise demands perfection (for why would He accept anything less?), and if there is one fact that Christianity and any other worldview can agree on, that fact is that there has never lived one perfect human being. Therefore no one can earn his way to God. Philosophically, there is no way for us to gain the only thing we need. Metaphorically, people are up a creek without a paddle.
BUT (the biggest but in history) that is not the end of the story, because that is where the goodness of God Himself steps in as the only perfect person who ever lived to earn the perfection we need so that He might switch us places (in God the Father’s righteous judgment) and to die the death we deserve. Therefore He saved us from what we deserve and has given us what we cannot possibly earn. What an amazing plan! However, salvation is only possible for those who can admit they cannot earn it on their own, and therefore “The idea of God is has problems” only for those who want to be their own God. Because those who claim to not believe in God really just don’t want to submit to anything other than themselves, and that for sure is a problem.
I don’t know if this young woman of the faith plans to stay in the class, but because it wasn’t long ago that I was in her shoes, I’d really like to help her out and encourage her to be a real light for Christ in this situation. I wish I knew then what I know now; I think it would be invaluable for her to hear (or in this case, read) my stance on the issue. I am only a 23 year old 8th grade English teacher, but I am a woman who desperately seeks after God and who also thoroughly enjoys discussion about things of God. I believe that I got into my car at the particular time I did today in order to be a help to this young lady, and I hope that you will forward my email to her, or give her my email.
Thank you so much for your time!
Soli Deo Gloria,
Ali Barnes
ali.barnes24@gmail.com
Mr. SeKulow~
I am writing in response to the question posed by a listener today. A college student wrote you of her philosophy professor forcing a web discussion with “The idea of God has problems.” I hope I am correct in this, since I did not catch the entire broadcast. I am a recent grad of a secular university myself, and I know too well the affront our faith faces at this level by cynical professors and fellow students. However, the statement “The idea of God has problems” is not at all a declaration that one should denounce her faith, but on the contrary, I would argue that it is an excellent spring board for the gospel.
Now I don’t know what else the professor said or wrote to this student, but if this is the prompt for the discussion, I would love to encourage her to take it in this philosophical light: of course the idea of God causes problems, because the idea of something holy, perfect, and omniscient makes we people see that we are not those things (which is a huge problem for us, since we [especially philosophers] are so prone to think highly of ourselves). The very fact that we like to think well of ourselves (romantic views of human nature, etc.) brings us into conflict with something that so obviously shows us that not only are we not what we think we are, but we are also guilty of all kinds of evil and deserving of death and hell. The God Who is perfect likewise demands perfection (for why would He accept anything less?), and if there is one fact that Christianity and any other worldview can agree on, that fact is that there has never lived one perfect human being. Therefore no one can earn his way to God. Philosophically, there is no way for us to gain the only thing we need. Metaphorically, people are up a creek without a paddle.
BUT (the biggest but in history) that is not the end of the story, because that is where the goodness of God Himself steps in as the only perfect person who ever lived to earn the perfection we need so that He might switch us places (in God the Father’s righteous judgment) and to die the death we deserve. Therefore He saved us from what we deserve and has given us what we cannot possibly earn. What an amazing plan! However, salvation is only possible for those who can admit they cannot earn it on their own, and therefore “The idea of God is has problems” only for those who want to be their own God. Because those who claim to not believe in God really just don’t want to submit to anything other than themselves, and that for sure is a problem.
I don’t know if this young woman of the faith plans to stay in the class, but because it wasn’t long ago that I was in her shoes, I’d really like to help her out and encourage her to be a real light for Christ in this situation. I wish I knew then what I know now; I think it would be invaluable for her to hear (or in this case, read) my stance on the issue. I am only a 23 year old 8th grade English teacher, but I am a woman who desperately seeks after God and who also thoroughly enjoys discussion about things of God. I believe that I got into my car at the particular time I did today in order to be a help to this young lady, and I hope that you will forward my email to her, or give her my email.
Thank you so much for your time!
Soli Deo Gloria,
Ali Barnes
ali.barnes24@gmail.com
Saturday, April 5, 2008
"The Truth will set you free"
This cliché started by none other than the Lord Himself is recorded in John 8:32. This phrase is misused often to mean that telling the truth will set a person free, when that is not what Jesus meant at all. He says this in conclusion to His answer to the crowd's question, "Who are you?"
It is no far stretch to deduce that there is a relation between this revelation and His proclamation in John 14:8, "I am the way, the Truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Therefore, the "Truth" that sets one free is two-fold. First of all, the Truth is Christ Himself, as He claims it in John 8. As God incarnate, He is the personification of Truth, since it is impossible for God to lie and everything He ordains comes to pass. Therefore, according to 8:32, Christ Himself sets you free, which He fulfilled by His atoning work on the cross. The second take on the Truth that sets one free is the truth of the Gospel pertaining to Who He was and what He did. Knowing one’s need for the sacrificial work of Christ and trusting in His work alone for salvation will indeed set one free from the bondage of sin.
From now on, every time I hear or read this phrase, “The truth will set you free,” whether it is misused in a movie, speech, or book, I will – at least in my own mind – give thanks to the One Who is the Truth and has, is, and will set me free.
It is no far stretch to deduce that there is a relation between this revelation and His proclamation in John 14:8, "I am the way, the Truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Therefore, the "Truth" that sets one free is two-fold. First of all, the Truth is Christ Himself, as He claims it in John 8. As God incarnate, He is the personification of Truth, since it is impossible for God to lie and everything He ordains comes to pass. Therefore, according to 8:32, Christ Himself sets you free, which He fulfilled by His atoning work on the cross. The second take on the Truth that sets one free is the truth of the Gospel pertaining to Who He was and what He did. Knowing one’s need for the sacrificial work of Christ and trusting in His work alone for salvation will indeed set one free from the bondage of sin.
From now on, every time I hear or read this phrase, “The truth will set you free,” whether it is misused in a movie, speech, or book, I will – at least in my own mind – give thanks to the One Who is the Truth and has, is, and will set me free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)