Saturday, April 26, 2008

Evolution vs. Creationism and Intelligent Design

The evolutionists are fully engaged in the war against God. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board rejected the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School's application to grant degrees in Texas. Even though the boards that viewed the school on-site gave them good reviews Commissioner Raymund Paredes rejected their findings as "flawed."

Ben Stein's movie Expelled exploded into the top 10 this week on its opening weekend, despite only being shown on 1,052 screens. Expelled placed 9th in the top 10 ahead of Clooney's film the Letterheads that showed on twice as many screens. Several film critics have attacked Expelled due to its Intelligent Design content, but everyone should check out the film to see what the reviewers and evolutionists don't want you to see!

If you get a chance go check out Expelled and post your thoughts on the film!


Benjamin Franklin said...

I saw Expelled on Tuesday.

It was boring, and will only serve to slightly widen the gap between the educated and the uneducated.

Regarding the ICR program being rejected in Texas, you should take to heart what St Augustine said 1600 years ago. It is even more valid today.

"If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Anonymous said...

Mr. Benjamin Franklin,

You should fly your kite a little higher. Maybe you will find the truth.

Lance M. Roberts said...


ICR was not rejected, because their teaching was flawed as you would might say. In fact, the panel that reviewed their school gave them a good review. Rather, their degree was rejected by some evolutionists extremists who have no way to prove their evolutionary THEORY.

Where did you get the Augustine quote?

Thank you,

Olorin said...

"Several film critics have attacked Expelled due to its Intelligent Design content,..."

Wrong. 94% of all critics (per Rotten Tomato) attacked it because of its faulty logic and obvious lies. And the negative reviews include a number of religious sites.

Your conspiracy theory is in full flower. Maybe "evolutionists" might not want you to see "Expelled," but why would movie reviewers not want you to see it? Maybe it's not a conspiracy; maybe it's just a vicious, horrible movie.

Lance M. Roberts said...


Thanks for your comments. I haven't seen the film and won't be able to for some time since I reside in Europe. But I think everyone should see it based on what I have heard about the film. It doesn't sound like you've seen it, but have believed the rotten tomatoes you've been reading.

I'm wondering what my conspiracy theory is that you hold I claim?


C. David Parsons said...

Expelled is the forward guard and The Quest for Right brings up the rear.


The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

The text begins simply enough, tracing the history of Darwin from an impressionable youth influenced by atheists and agnostics on every hand to a full-fledged agnostic in his own right. The matter may be summed up by the inclusion of Darwin’s sentiment regarding the Creator. In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he "could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." Darwin charged his original belief in God to the "constant inculcation" (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God" during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake…. Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge. And the scientific illiterate upstart sought to entrap the innocents in the classroom in his web of deceit.

Once past the history of the Darwinist movement, the architecture of the quantum atom is explored in great detail. This is breathtakingly new!

The atom has been compared to a miniature sun-earth system with one or more electrons darting about everywhere at once weaving an electronic shell around the nucleus. In order for this to occur, “Bohr calculated that the electron must move at a speed of no less than seven million billion rotations per second.” Ummmm, "numerous electrons darting about, dodging one another at breakneck speeds would necessarily require the supernatural. The Quest for Right will prove to your complete satisfaction that the electron is directly adhered to the perimeter of the nucleus. “How could it have been otherwise?” The exciting text is remarkably easy to follow even for a lay person. Read a review:

"I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

The book is a virtual smorgasbord of good things to taste: a few of the entertaining subjects include: the earth was created from a watery nebula, the mechanism of gravity which was used to form the earth, the failed photoelectric effect, theory of antimatter, quantum creation (big bang theory), disappearing color, magical application of mathematics to explain certain rudimentary principles, Rayleigh scattering (sunsets), electricity, lightning, electrolyte, the browning of fruit, the mystery of fire, and the role of oxygen in the ignition of hydrocarbons. Then, there’s the desserts which are far too numerous to mention in this limited space; for example, the origin and dimise of the great dinosaurs. Moreover, you will marvel at the comprehensive law of fixed choice.

This is not your parent’s science book filled with distortions of the truth, called “quantum mysticism.” The comprehensive investigation--like none other you will read--quickly escapes into realism by underscoring the numerous experiments and errors responsible for the debasement of scientific theories based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

The Quest for Right is not only an academic resource designed for the public schools, but also contains a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that seminarians, and Christians in general, need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth Biblical studies. The nuggets from the pages of Biblical history alone will give seminarians literally hundreds of fresh ideas for sermons and teachings. The ministry resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich graduates beyond their highest expectations.

Visit the official website for additional information:

Olorin said...

"I'm wondering what my conspiracy theory is that you hold I claim?"

Many scientists, and 94% of all movie reviewers, think "Expelled" is a load of dingoes kidneys. Your comment that "reviewers and evolutionists don't want you to see" the movie sounds like they're in a conspiracy to prevent you from seeing it. Sounds like a National Enquirer headline at best.

Lance M. Roberts said...

Thanks Orolin,

From what I understand those who produced the film aren't Christians or Creationists, but hold to the "Intelligent Design" argument.

I certainly can't endorse the movie as I haven't seen it. Thus, I wrote in the post to go see it and post your views of the movie. As of now I think only one person who has commented here has seen the film.

Olorin said...

"As of now I think only one person who has commented here has seen the film."

Which one? A number of the reviewers said "Expelled" was boring, so B.F isn't necessarily commenting from his own experience.

No, I haven't seen the movie. My reason is the same as yours. however, I have followed it closely, and have read beaucoup reviews.

But maybe my own intelligence is substandard. it takes me me half a dozen tries to get your "word verification" correct....

BTW, "intelligent design" is a form of creationism, and thus a religious doctrine. This was a part of the court's holding in Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005, and it was an inescapable conclusion from the testimony (which I have read). The Discovery Institute would have you think otherwise, but they make their employees take a pledge that is religious in nature. The AAAS doesn't makes scientists take a pledge to believe in evolution :-)

Shelly said...

Hi Lance (and Sandy too),

Greetings of hope, peace, joy and love I send you in the mighty name of Christ Jesus our Savior. Hope all is well. Please forgive me that I have not spoken with you or Sandy for years. I do pray for you, your family, your ministry and love getting your quarterly updates. Please send Sandy my greetings.

Lance, thank you for kindly responding to some of these comments on here.

I saw the film a few weeks back and I enjoyed the film and found some facts very interesting. There absolutely was no push for creationism or links to Christianity. In fact, a few professors (one specifically from Biola University) said that the theory of intelligent design has nothing to do with doctrine, faith, religion or creationism. There was no common thread of Christianity and those holding to the intelligent design theory.

The film was trying to clearly show that there are massive gaps in the Darwin or evolutionary theory that do not explain themselves fully and completely and have no real final absolute explainations on how life began. Extemely well educated and respected individuals started to question and study where life came from and came to conclusions other than the Darwin/evolutionary theory. I found it very interesting that these intellegent design theorists were denied the opportunity to think this way. For me, this goes against what I believe science is. Webster's Dictionary states these few definations of science- 1)knowledge as facts, phenomena, laws, and proximate causes, gained and verified by exact observation, organized experiment, and analysis.2)Any department of knowledge in which the results of investigation have been systematized in the form of hypotheses and general laws subject to verification.

Why is their theory not valued as a theory in the realm of science? Why has teaching the intellent design theory been outlawed in public schools in California and only the Darwinism theory taught?

From a true Christian standpoint, this film actually could have been disappointing because it was not taken from a Christian viewpoint. There was no connection to any specific god (as the film lumped gods together, not God) being the brain behind intellegent design, there were no Biblical references and no mention of the God head. There could be many more questions to arise for a Christian from the film to explain intelligent design.

I would say that it would have been good for the film to show how the intelligent design theorists came to their understandings and what this intelligent design means as a thought or theory in science.

The more and more I study the complexities of the human body, the world, the stars, the universe, the galaxies... the list goes on, the more convinced I am that God must have been the only One to create such uniqueness, balance, support and complexity. Even the simplest of the most basic of all living things, the atom, is so incredibly incomprehenible that we can not even begin to wrap our brains around it. None of us may never know the fullness and extreme details of even the simplist atom.

Lance and Sandy, continue to press onward still more to be light in the darkness, hope to the hopeless. We serve a great and mighty God.

Because He reigns,

With love,

Shelly (from Grace on Campus, Northridge)

Lance M. Roberts said...

Thanks for the comments:


"Which one?"

- Ben Franklin says above that he saw it on " was boring."

"BTW, 'intelligent design' is a form of creationism, and thus a religious doctrine."

- I would add that evolution is a religious doctrine. To say that nothing created everything requires an enormous amount of faith. There is no intelligence in believing that. To say that everything created itself is sheer fantasy.


Thank you for your honest review of the movie. The things you mentioned reflect some of the weaknesses I have read about the film, but as you alluded to it seems that its aim is to point out some of the problems of evolution and to open the door for more intelligent discussion of origins in schools and other venues.

Benjamin Franklin said...

I can give you what is perhaps a much clearer definition of what science is.

Science is the systematic approach to provide natural explanations for natural phenomena.

It isn't that ID proponents are being silenced, or suppressed by the scientific community. And it isn't that that the scientific community has rejected God, as the movie tries to imply. What is the case, is that the concept of ID requires non-natural (supernatural) explanations, which simply falls outside the purview of science. Not that it is wrong, but it cannot be approached scientifically, you can't fit God into the equation, because at that point it becomes untestable and ultimately unsolvable.

For that reason, it belongs in the metaphysical, or philosophical areas of study, not biology.

ID is not, and I don't think ever will be a proper subject to be taught in a science class.

Lance, I rally doubt if you will ever see the film released in Europe. It was designed for conservative Christian fundamentalists, and that demographic dwindles down to almost nothing outside of the US.
And given how poorly it has done in the US market, don't look for world wide release. Maybe you will be able to pick it up on DVD, it will probably be released in a couple of months, maybe sooner.

Olorin said...

Lance: "I would add that evolution is a religious doctrine. To say that nothing created everything requires an enormous amount of faith."

Lance, you really should learn at least something about evolution before you trash it. Here's the Cliff notes version of Darwin's original theory: (1) living organisms have variations from each other; (2) these variations can be inherited and modified in their progeny; (2) organisms tend to produce more offspring than can be supported in their environment; and (4) the offspring that survive are those best adapted to their environment. The theory has greatly changed and filled out since Darwin's day, of course. The University of California has a good introduction at you dare to learn anything about it

As to evolution as a faith, you show a lack of understanding as to how science differs from religion. Scientific research is based upon observation and measurement, which gets written up, peer-reviewed, and published for others to build upon. Religious research, on the other hand is carried out by revelation and by interpretation of authorities. This is why, although ID pretends to do science, it proceeds according to religious principles: by appealing to "common sense" as revealed truth, by quote -mining scientific papers, and by impugning scientists, rather than by performing experiments, observing nature, or doing computer simulations to test hypotheses.

Scientists do not censor ID because it threatens anything. They do insist that ID bring some credible positive scientific evidence of design to the table, just as every other theory is required to do. Actually, anyone who could come up with such evidence would not only be invited in, he would be on a fast rack for a Nobel. So far, this has not happened. ID keeps claiming there is evidence, but has never produced any---it's nothing but a shell game for manipulating the minds of people who who prefer belief to knowledge.

Of those who are qualified to judge the evidence for and against evolution, 484,000 researchers worldwide accept evolution, while about 16 do not. 61 government and professional organizations for evolution, zero against. Half a dozen religious organizations for, including the Roman Catholic Church, many Protestant denominations, and 11,500 individual clergy on record. Are they all wrong? Are they all in a vast conspiracy to suppress "truth"? Are they all deluded?

PS: If you really believe that matter cannot be created from nothing, then you will have to deny quantum mechanics as well as evolution. Eventually, you may have to deny almost all of science. You may get very lonely.

Lance M. Roberts said...


Thanks for your comments. You are absolutely right about the film never making it to Europe. The society here is too post-modern, too atheistic, and too evolutionistic to every show it here. It is not something I'm dying to see, but I got a couple emails recommending for people to go see it, so I thought I would throw something about it up on the blog.

I wanted to ask you again where you got the Augustine quote you listed earlier?

Also, do you reject the definition of science that Shelly quoted from the dictionary?

The problem when dealing with origins is that it can't be produced in a laboratory. It occured thousands of years ago and none of us where there. Natural process can't provide the answer for us as to how it all happened. Too many things have happened between now and then that have tainted the evidence. So when we talk about origins we are dealing in an area of belief or theory.

Why do scientist think it intelligent to pretend that an "intelligence" or God wasn't involved in creation? I laugh when I hear them on the news saying they are sending another multi-million or billion dollar satellite or rocket to Mars to see if life was there to help us understand where we came from. This is all based in evolutionary atheistic theory. They presuppose there is no God, and then blast millions of dollars into space to try to find answers. ??


I have studied evolution as I was required to. However, there are too many questions that evolution CANNOT answer. Some of the things I was going to say in your response I just wrote above to Ben. However, Creationists don't deny variations. They just don't accept that you can take the genetic make-up of a fish and it turn into a rabbit, and one day it turn into a human. Answers in Genesis has some material on this.

I would encourage you to look at the RATE study by ICR in San Diego that did a 10 year study on radio-isotope dating. If my memory is right it was led by former Cornell University professor Dr. Can't remember his name. It is quite an interesting study on dating showing that things aren't necessarily as old as some say (i.e. billions of years).

Nevertheless, Creationists and Evolutionists have and study the same evidence. One approaches the evidence with the presupposition that God created it, the other approaches the evidence as though it just happened, and they both seek to find the truth.

I start with God, the Creator, and believe that He did not leave us in the dark. Even Jesus Himself affirmed the creation account as true.

Olorin said...

If you really believe the last two paragraphs of your previous comment, then you truly do not understand science or the methods of scientific research.

You will, of course, continue to receive the benefits of evolution-designed vaccines, wildlife protection programs, and genetic-disease research even if you do not accept evolution.

'Bye now.

Lance M. Roberts said...


No, I think we just have a serious disagreement. If you think you see things without a bias you are mistaken. You approach the evidence already interpreting the data in light of what you believe to be true. If it doesn't fit you try to figure out why and search for a reasonable solution. The Creationist does the same thing.

Evolution plays no role in the development of "vaccines, wildlife protection programs, and genetic-disease research."

The increase in technology in developing modern communication and biomedical research is not a result in the belief of evolution.

The development of these are possible, because God has created various laws (i.e. physics and etc.). God has created everything logically and orderly, which is why we are able to reason through the various possibilities and come to a logical solution.

The development of medicine and things today are based on laws of science that God has created. Both Creationists and Evolutionists can agree on these things. But interpreting historical events and origins cannot be reproduced in a laboratory and proven to be fact.

No evolutionists has added data and created a new creature as they claim the evolutionary process has done so well.

Benjamin Franklin said...


The passage from St Augustine is from "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) which provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge.

Lance M. Roberts said...

Thanks Ben!