Perhaps you have heard of Ben Stein’s documentary that just hit. The film documents the silencing of those in the scientific community that dare to oppose Darwin’s theory of evolution or merely suggest that there is scientific evidence contradicting it. Perhaps you have seen the trailer for the movie on TV.If you haven’t, it’s not surprising. The film has not been given much publicity in the public media. In it, Ben Stein exposes the extreme close-mindedness and elitism that is characteristic of today’s scientific establishment. The film Get Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed brings to the front those in the scientific community that feel they can no longer adhere to Darwin’s explanation of origins given the scientific data before them.To them, the “Emperor” is clearly “naked” and scientists have dared to say so……and lost their careers in the process. Among them are Professors, Biochemists, Physicists, Nobel Laureates, Geologists, Heads of Science at prestigious universities, etc. “Brainiacs” all, yet silenced for their assertion that Intelligent Design explains the scientific facts better than Darwinian evolution. One scientist, an editor of a scientific journal, isn’t even an Intelligent Design advocate, but simply allowed an article by a proponent of ID in his journal.His career is over. And such is the case for many others. Hundreds, in fact, that were interviewed by Ben Stein though only 5 or 6 agreed to be included in the documentary.I thought the documentary was very well done and very eye-opening. I’m glad to see scientists that are increasingly willing to speak out against what they know is terrible science (i.e. Darwinian evolution). Amazing to me is the fact that the “scientific” elite continues to cry, “Religion! Intelligent Design is not science!!” when a mere cursory examination of the arguments reveal that scientists who are defecting from Darwinian theory are doing so because of scientific data – not religious dogma!Surprisingly, the advocates of Intelligent Design are not pushing for evidence for Intelligent Design to be taught in the classroom. They know that such a thing is too politically charged. So, they have opted for a much more realistic, almost ludicrously deserving request – just let the evidence against evolution be heard in the classroom. How could anyone argue with that?Still, the scientific community says, “No way”. Wait a minute. We're not even talking about Intelligent Design – just let scientific evidence that contradicts evolution be heard! Not a chance. So says the “scientific elite”.At one point in the documentary, Ben Stein asks the evolutionists’ current pit bull, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, to give the evolutionists’ best explanation of how life began. To the shock and amusement of the audience, Mr. Dawkins proceeded to explain that life, of course, had to have been started by something or someone from outside our universe. I was thinking, as was probably most in the audience, “Hmmm….this is getting interesting.” He then proceeded to explain how many scientists know that life couldn’t have just “happened” on its own but had to have some outside cause...Uh…was that just a rejection of Darwinism?... So, what is one of the most “plausible” explanations that scientists are using to explain the sudden appearance of life? Now, don't laugh...Aliens. Yep. He said it. Richard Dawkins – the intellectually-fulfilled-atheist (his words) and evolutionary scientist extraordinaire actually thinks that perhaps “some other form of life” (i.e. Aliens) came into being and evolved (according to Darwinian principles, of course) and then, at some point in the past, “seeded” life on this planet.You may now pick your jaw up from the floor.I know. I couldn’t believe my ears either. To Richard Dawkins, God is not even a remote possibility…Aliens are. Wow!But, this highlights the absolute stubbornness among scientists to deal honestly with the facts in front of them. Confronted, as Mr. Dawkins obviously is, with the compelling evidence for a “Designer”, he still refuses to even allow the possibility and instead launches into an explanation for the origin of life that would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. As I pondered how anyone could be so – pardon the expression – “pigheaded”, I suddenly realized I had seen such a thing recently and felt the same way when I encountered a modern critic of the New Testament.One of CNN’s favorite “experts” in their specials critiquing the New Testament story of Jesus is “scholar” Bart Ehrman. After encountering him in the CNN specials, I found a transcript of a debate between him and Dr. William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. The debate was over the Resurrection of Jesus. Is it fact or fiction?The debate was very interesting, but I found myself with the same “jaw-on-the-floor” feeling as when I had watched Mr. Dawkins spout off about how aliens are more plausible than God. At one point in the debate, Dr. Ehrman explains how historians not only cannot, but will not say that the Resurrection is the most plausible explanation of the evidence.Here is an excerpt from the debate in which Dr. Ehrman attempts to explain why a miracle – such as the Resurrection – cannot ever be the best explanation for a given set of facts:“Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature of the canons of historical research, we can’t claim historically that a miracle probably happened. By definition, it probably didn’t. And history can only establish what probably did.”So, here’s the deal. According to Dr. Ehrman, because a miracle cuts against the grain of what we normally see happen, it can never – ever – be the most probable explanation for a given set of facts. In other words, Dr. Ehrman’s job title, Historian, does not allow him to say that the Resurrection probably happened, even if that is the most plausible explanation. In his mind, the fact that he is a historian, compels him to come up with some other natural explanation...Someone stole the body...Jesus didn’t really die – He just passed out...He really married Mary Magdelene and ran off and had kids, etc......even if these explanations don't fit other historical facts. Anything, anything but what the eyewitnesses in the Gospels say is fair game...why? Because a historian cannot say that the Resurrection is the most probable explanation – even if it’s the best fit for the facts.I got that “Deja Vu” type of feeling as I watched Ben Stein interview the evolutionists' favorite son, Richard Dawkins.Richard Dawkins, guru of the “scientific” community apparently has the same problem as Dr. Ehrman. When presented with overwhelming evidence from Cosmology, Molecular Biology, and Paleontology that Darwin’s theory doesn’t hold a candle to Intelligent Design for explaining what we see in the natural world, he turns to Aliens...that were formed by Darwinian evolution, of course. Hey, at least it’s an explanation from the natural world, right? And it leaves God out, which, I’m pretty sure is the main goal.But, what happens when the crazy explanations by the Ehrmans and the Dawkins of the academic world seem stranger than the miracle and less plausible than God?I guess you just keep coming up with theories and, regardless of how outlandish, pass them off to an unsuspecting public – and impressionable children I might add - as “History” and “Science”.I know one thing...if, because of my job title, I was day-in and day-out forced to come up with some other explanation for a given set of facts than the most plausible one...I’d find another job.
|
