EXPELLED Will You Watch It?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Pel, I wish you would speak more plainly so I could understand you better.

Here let me see if I understand what you are saying.

You can't take the Genesis account of creation literally nor in its proper order.
Yep, you lost me with the Picasso analogy again.



LOST! I'm completely lost! What do you mean?

Do you think this is how David or Job or the Apostle Paul understood Genesis?

Categories?

Bump!

[pelathais]

I have just returned from seeing Ben Stein's flick "Expelled." It really was the propaganda piece that I had heard it was. One thing to look for when you watch is Ben's changing hair style. It's obvious that the film was made over at least two disparate time spans. He goes from close cropped to quite a bit fuller, back to close cropped. I like Ben, but I think he's been taken for a ride on this one.

Also the funding is still a bit hazy. The Washington Times (owned by the Unification Church), the Discovery Institute in Seattle (Moonie funded) and the outspoken Moonie evangelist Jonathan Wells are all featured prominently.

The opening "Expelled" victim, Richard Sternberg of the prestigious Smithsonian Institute is really played up. "Those people" (evilutionists) drove this poor man from his respected position at the Smithsonian and "nearly ruined his life..." The truth is far different, of course. Richard Sternberg was an unpaid research assistant at the Smithsonian - he didn't even have a "job" there to lose! And further, the article that he rushed into print that caused the minor furor and embarassment was never reviewed by any one other than himself; a clear violation of the publication's peer review policy. The guy seems to have basically lied to Ben Stein and the film's producers- or they were all in on the deception together. And this after he lied to the editorial board and the journal's readers. It's hard to feel sorry for this guy.

[pelathais]

More about "Expelled": it turns out that the unfortunate Dr. Sternberg was never even "Expelled" from the Smithsonian. When he says "they took away my keys..." what he really means is that a new electronic badge entry system was installed in the offices where he "worked" (as an upaid volunteer). So yes, they took away his keys, but they also issued him a badge that opens the same doors.

When Dr. Sternberg says, "they took away my office..." what he means is that the entire department of research assistants were relocated - he still has an office in the Smithsonian!

And, when he says "I lost my position as editor of the journal..." what he means is that he actually announced that he would resign that position six months before the article was ever published. The following is from this site:

"As stated above, Sternberg did not lose his office or his access to collections, he did not lose his job, he was not “fired” from the (unpaid) editorship of the journal (he had resigned six months before the publication of the Meyer article), and from the e-mails in the appendix to the Souder report, it appears that his colleagues were civil in their communications with him. The Smithsonian renewed his Research Collaborator status for another three years in 2006. It seems, then, that the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about him in private email to one another. Since the same can be said of almost every person, it’s hard to see how this could be construed as “life ruining”. There is no evidence of any material harm done to Sternberg as a result of the publication of the Meyer article. And any damage done to his reputation would seem to have been self-inflicted."

Why the deception? This has Moonie fingerprints all over it.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

What is the "proper order?" The order that it's written in, or the order that makes sense as a natural history? It's not a natural history. The writers very obviously knew that they were NOT writing a natural history.


Picasso was perfectly capable of painting a picture in 1972 that looked like Picasso. Instead, he purposefully painted a "cartoonish" looking form. He had a reason to do so.

The writers of Genesis were perfectly capable of writing a natural history (or at least an encapsulation of one) but they purposefully chose not to do so. They had a very good reason for doing that.

It's a bit unfair to say, "Picasso can't paint..." when he has demonstrated the ability to do so in the past. But looking at the 1972 painting, people have made that charge.

So also, it is unfair to say that the writers of the Bible were unable to write knowledgably about their natural world. For while lacking our technical capabilities, they have demonstrated keen insights and the ability to make sound deductions based upon their "primitive" observations. The order of the creation "events" is too big of a gaff to have missed. The more reasonable conclusion is that they were making a point about something that we may have lost over the centuries. One focus of theirs that we haven't lost is Israel, however.

Yes, except Job... and David. From most of the dates put forth (and the very good arguments for those dates) it would seem that the book of Job predates Genesis 1 and 2. And it was the reforming ways of David's ancestor Josiah who set the theme for the work of the writers of Genesis 1 & 2 and the later Sopherim working under Ezra.

"Attention to categories" is the simplest definition of "holiness."

Bump

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I'm sorry, Pel, I thought you were calling Matthew's declaration that Jesus coming out of Egypt a fullfillment of prophey a true "gaff".

What do you think it is? How would you interpret it?

Matthew expected that the work of God in his time would follow the same patterns as the work that God did in other times. Thus, since Abraham went down into Egypt, Isaac went down into Egypt and Jacob went down into Egypt - all in apparant misfortune, but a misfortune that God turned into a blessing; so also would the Messiah have similar experiences.

So when he says Hosea 11:1 was "fulfilled" in Matthew 3:15, Matthew isn't "bungling" by confusing a history with a prophecy- for him history was prophecy, to the spiritually discerning.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I have just returned from seeing Ben Stein's flick "Expelled." It really was the propaganda piece that I had heard it was. One thing to look for when you watch is Ben's changing hair style. It's obvious that the film was made over at least two disparate time spans. He goes from close cropped to quite a bit fuller, back to close cropped. I like Ben, but I think he's been taken for a ride on this one.

Also the funding is still a bit hazy. The Washington Times (owned by the Unification Church), the Discovery Institute in Seattle (Moonie funded) and the outspoken Moonie evangelist Jonathan Wells are all featured prominently.

The opening "Expelled" victim, Richard Sternberg of the prestigious Smithsonian Institute is really played up. "Those people" (evilutionists) drove this poor man from his respected position at the Smithsonian and "nearly ruined his life..." The truth is far different, of course. Richard Sternberg was an unpaid research assistant at the Smithsonian - he didn't even have a "job" there to lose! And further, the article that he rushed into print that caused the minor furor and embarassment was never reviewed by any one other than himself; a clear violation of the publication's peer review policy. The guy seems to have basically lied to Ben Stein and the film's producers- or they were all in on the deception together. And this after he lied to the editorial board and the journal's readers. It's hard to feel sorry for this guy.

Pel,

Is the Discovery Institute FULLY Funded by the Moonies? If not what percentage of their funding comes from the Moonies?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Pel,

Is the Discovery Institute FULLY Funded by the Moonies? If not what percentage of their funding comes from the Moonies?

The Discovery Institute was apparently founded upon the funds of the Ahmanson family of California. Philip Johnson (founder of DI) dedicates his first book to them because they understood his "wedge strategy."

The patriarch of the Ahmansons was heir to a Savings and Loan fortune and was known to be a some what extreme Christian Reconstructionist. After getting the DI off the ground, Johnson was open and generous to a variety of groups and individuals. He seemed to think he had his "wedge" when Michael Behe proposed irreducible complexity. Nothing much panned out from that, however.

About that same time (late 1990's) he took in Jonathan Wells from the Unification Theology Center. Wells had been personally selected by "Father" (Rev. Moon) years earlier to get a second doctorate in biology so that he could combat evolution. Rev. Moon viewed evolution as a lynch pin in the philosophies of the Communist government in North Korea.

Wells has emerged as the primary spokesman for the Discovery Institute in recent years while Johnson has faded out of the limelight. The film "Expelled" uses a vast amount of old propaganda film from the communist era to try and make its point.

I personally am more concerned about how the Moonies spread their propaganda then in how much they spend to do so, and they always seem to smear their fellow travellers with their own deceit.

The Discovery Institute does not reveal how much it gets from what source, and it does have the Cascadia offshoot that is largely funded by the Bill and Melanie Gates Foundation. Cascadia studies transportation issues in the Pacific Northwest. The media tend to focus on the "evangelical" element within the DI, but I am more concerned about the Moonies involvement. How much is any one's guess, but I can send you a PDF document of the DI's IRS 909 Form for 2007, if you'd like. This just covers the totals received.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Matthew expected that the work of God in his time would follow the same patterns as the work that God did in other times. Thus, since Abraham went down into Egypt, Isaac went down into Egypt and Jacob went down into Egypt - all in apparant misfortune, but a misfortune that God turned into a blessing; so also would the Messiah have similar experiences.

So when he says Hosea 11:1 was "fulfilled" in Matthew 3:15, Matthew isn't "bungling" by confusing a history with a prophecy- for him history was prophecy, to the spiritually discerning.

I completely misunderstood you before. I thought the "bungling" was your own word for what Matthew wrote in chapt 3.

[Encryptus]

Pel,

So you are just saying the Michael Mooreons got a taste of their own medicine?

[Hoovie]

OK, I saw it.

I am not a critic nor really a skeptic as it appears some of you are.

I thought the movie was great!

Regardless whether some of the featured "victims were exaggerated, it had a good effect on me. Especially the the stark reality that atheism, and evolution rob the soul, not only of concrete morality and eternal purpose, but also some scientific truth.