Expelled: No Theistic Evolution Allowed!

Hello, you’re probably wondering what I’m doing here. Like most people, I also have questions. Very big questions like… how did we get here? Where are we going? Is there a scientific answer to these questions or are we in the universe merely the result of a guy with pink robes in a beard?
Most of my life, I believed that the answers to these questions were fairly straight forward. We are the result of a long, magnificent, elegant process known as natural selection. That includes birds, trees, people, really, all living things.
I also knew that other people, very smart people, believe otherwise. Rather than see the hand of nature at work, they see the universe as the product of the Judeo-Christian god. And rather than see us as the culmination of billions of years of evolution, they believe that we are merely dust that was breathed on by a guy with a beard.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
Genesis 2:7
I have no problem if people want to believe that sort of thing. After all, we live in a free society. This isn’t Nazi Germany. People are entitled to say whatever they want about God and the creation.
At least, that’s what I used to think.
My dear ex-creationist theist friend, James T. Kirk, has been trying to form a science group at his church. However, his pastor told him he couldn’t do it and he has reason to believe that it has something to do with his being theistic evolutionist.
March 22:
3:04 PM James T. Kirk: This is unrelated but I have found that probably 80% of my church and 98% of the people at the High Scholl group are anti-evolutionists
me: What church do you go to?
3:05 PM James T. Kirk: independant evangelical
me: Ah.
James T. Kirk: the denomination is called Calvary Chapel
3:06 PM So I have gone from being right at home to being like a rabbit inside a cave full of wolves
me: Yeah… I was having trouble imagining a theistic evolutionist in that environment.
3:07 PM James T. Kirk: Luckily my church is not militantly anti-evolutionist, just passively and nominally
3:08 PM As a result the group I have been leading was sort of banned by the youth pastor because it was causing confusion (which was probably related to creationism)
me: I don’t know what militantly anti-evolutionist means.
James T. Kirk: Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, Jack T Chick etc.
3:09 PM they are all active (militant) anti-evolutionists
me: So they’re active anti-evolutionists.
James T. Kirk: yes, but my church is not completely against evolution–just the people who lead it
3:10 PM when I started a church science club I intended to strengthen peoples faith, love for the creator, and love for the creation not overthrow the church‘s current theological thinking
3:11 PM me: Ah. I see.
Good intentions.
3:12 PM James T. Kirk: But unfortionately being that the church is young earth creationist toddlers to seniors its a little difficult not to threaten the current views on genesis
But I wouldn’t say I am going through exactly what Galileo went through
me: Ah.
3:13 PM If you want me to come talk sense into your church
Want to do a creation/evolution debate?
I’ll be the token evolutionist, and you can set a whole panel of creationists against me.
I’ll hold my own.
3:14 PM James T. Kirk: Alright, It’ll happen on March 30,2008; you have to fly here of course (keep in mind I am being facetious)
me: Lol.
3:15 PM James T. Kirk: But the reasons I was censored are a little more complicated then that
me: Oh?
James T. Kirk: It appears the senior pastor learned I was giving out newspapers to those in my group…
me: Newspapers?
3:16 PM James T. Kirk: Yes… I was givng them out to circulate ideas for scientific projects among the members it was a scientific/theological journal
Well anyway…
3:17 PM me: Evolutionist?
3:18 PM James T. Kirk: (neutral actually I was going to let the young earth view also be defended) He learned about this and came to the High School, after seeing what I was doing he didn’t want me to do it without his permission (also he was probably making sure I was doing something like “Satan worshipers Weekly”)
3:19 PM me: So he didn’t want them learning about the evolutionist view?
James T. Kirk: I guess
And to top that…
3:21 PM A few weeks later a member of the club apparently told my youth pastor I was confusing him/her, so he decided to shut it off to stop any confusion, and as I later found out–the person apparently is either lying or doesn’t exist
3:22 PM me: Confusing? How so?
James T. Kirk: I dont know he simply told me the person was confused
3:23 PM I could have been theological or grammatical either way he was confused
me: That’s confusing.
3:24 PM James T. Kirk: Yes, the last time I talked to my pastor he said it was the senior pastor who told him not to because of confusion
3:25 PM meanwhile we are planning things as harmless as rocket launches
(theologically harmless)
me: So was it because of evolution?
3:26 PM You ought to know that I have to go in 5 minutes.
3:27 PM James T. Kirk: I supported the Big Bang, but I was more passive on evolution, what I focused on more when it came to biology and God was Abiogenesis and I agree with the church‘s position on it
I’ll finish soon
But what ever it was the senior pastor found it biblically and theologically troublesome
me: Hm… Let me know if you find out more…
April 12:
2:39 PM James T. Kirk: Well I talked to my Youth Pastor and said I’d water it down so all we talked about was pure current science (no evolution or historical geology beyond 1,000,000 years or anything) and he said I might be able to resume activity with it and the people in the club but first he hads to talk to those in the club who were supposedly confused
This does seem like giving up but there is still productive research we could do
2:40 PM Like look at out planet’s future
me: sigh Such a terrible shame, my friend…
Evolution is such a wonderful truth.
James T. Kirk: What?”
2:41 PM me: Evolution is one of the greatest scientific theories ever.
Your group will be missing out on so much.
Do you think you could do an… unofficial field trip to your local natural history museum?
2:42 PM James T. Kirk: Possibly but first I have to get it back into action and not allow the members of club to talk to the pastor (just kidding)
me: lol
2:43 PM James T. Kirk: Well in studying evolution, we will study recent evolution
2:44 PM me: You mean… anthropology?
2:45 PM James T. Kirk: That and Natural history going back to the late pliesticine
Of course its doubtful I’ll be talking about prehistoric humans
except perhaps the neanderthals
me: Hm… You’re allowed to talk about micro-evolution, yes?
2:46 PM James T. Kirk: yes
Just not Homo erectus to homo sapien evolution
2:47 PM I’m more making judgements on what I should present, I have decided to let the members decide
What was so dangerous about potentially telling school kids about evolution? Nothing that I could tell. It merely suggested that we weren’t just dust animated by air on the sixth day of Creation.
Not only was James oppressed for questioning Genesis, but I was finding that not only was Genesis improbable, it could also be dangerous.
After all, in Genesis, Eve is created for the purpose of making Adam happier, Eve is the one who is tempted to take the apple. Is this not fundamentally misogynistic?
And what if a person, taking Genesis literally, decides that the whole Bible, a text which doesn’t say one word against slavery, is true? What about all those quotes that support the death penalty for everything from being a witch, being a homosexual, blasphemy, to gathering sticks on the sabbath? Could Genesis lead to another holocaust of Atheists, Wiccans, and homosexuals?
As I continued to investigate, I became more and more disturbed, but I’m not letting that keep me from speaking out.

9 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by David Beber on April 19, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    Has anybody read the articles on Expelled at the LA Times and Conservapedia? I am referring to these articles: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-projector18apr18,1,4982009.story and http://www.conservapedia.com/Expelled Does anyone know which conservative groups are promoting the movie the most aggressively?

    It seems as if Andy Schlafly and his cohorts are definitely fans of the movie which is not surprising given their very critical view of atheism (Conservapedia’s atheism article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism ).

  2. This is pretty clever Elles! You ought to email it with the photo to Ben Stein. 😉

  3. Posted by James T Kirk on April 20, 2008 at 2:09 am

    It is not Genesis I am questioning, merely an interpretation of Genesis

  4. Fair enough, James. You’re getting pseudo-internet-fame either way.

  5. “It merely suggested that we weren’t just dust animated by air on the sixth day of Creation.”

    This sentence struck me as interesting. The theory of evolution is often accused of devaluing human life (we’re just monkeys!), but you so casually turn that around in this sentence. It implies that dust and air aren’t very special at all, but self-replicating masses of molecules that are descended from simpler molecules that pulled themselves up by their bootstraps (metaphorically speaking) from an inorganic soup many millions of years ago are pretty special indeed! I like it!

  6. Posted by Frank on April 20, 2008 at 11:43 am

    I enjoyed the documentary and it is clear that there really are two distinct world views and that Stein is correct – the “scientific” point of view has totally bought into the atheist, evolutionist position. The result is a culture of death that has lost the integrity of scientific inquiry and embraced the kool-aid of abortion and eugenics. Cheers to Stein for having the courage to call them on it!

  7. A culture of death, you say?

    Then why is it that I love life with such a passionate zeal? You do realize that if we took the Bible literally there would be even more death, yes?

    Eugenics was around for thousands of years before Darwin’s time. Did you know that? Yes, you can deny it if you deny that we got various dog breeds by selecting traits that humans considered favourable.

    The problem with eugenics is that it’s hard for a human to decide which traits are favourable in other humans. In Hitler’s particular case, he was a nationalistic pro-Aryan racist. Evolution isn’t pro-racist in any way. In fact, it offers arguments against racism.

  8. Posted by Evolved Rationalist on April 20, 2008 at 11:11 pm

    Wow, a Franken-FAIL right up there.

  9. Posted by James T Kirk on April 21, 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Frank, evolution does not comment on the existence of God, you can believe in God and evolution, also evolution in my opinion seems to tie more into animistic beliefs (we are part of the great circle of life, we are star stuff) then nihilism. ALthough it can lead to either one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: