Inherently wind; a Hollywood history of the Scopes trial - audio lecture by David Menton

Quotes and comments;
- in the lecture he's referring to the Spencer Tracy movie.
- the music at times is deliberately off key; the worst renditions of 'old time religion' I've ever heard...
- I've seen this movie and in my opinion it's totally fallacious; no different than what the soviets did... soviet style propaganda... at its worst.

1. Scopes claimed he never taught the kids evolution... he claimed the kids were coached by the lawyers.. (he only taught 2 weeks of a biology course... when the regular teacher got sick...)

2. The textbook scopes was using was racist to the core.... ie. whites are vastly superior.... (this is what the great liberals of the time were defending.)

3. Nothing in this movie is true... it's almost 100 percent false... soviet propaganda at its worst.... (the makers of this movie were total liars and hypocrites)
- why you would anyone believe anything evolutionists say when they produced such a total lie as this movie? The theory of evolution is as factual as this movie.

4. - in a 1925 cartoon Bryan is shown throwing over a cliff all these great things; animal husbandry, navigation, the whole of agriculture, the law of gravity, mathematics, mechanical engineering, medicine, x-ray technology... and other things.. all for doubting darwin. (And evolutionists are even more lying and deceitful in our day. The very same garbage goes on constantly; just recently some clown claimed creationism would stop all progress in medicine and science. The lies never end; even if they are cartoonish lies... Who in the e. community protests against this slander? Know anyone?

5. In my experience evolutionists are about as honest as this movie. Try to find one that's spoken out against this movie... try to find even one, in all these decades! They've been tarred by their own brush; as this vast silence condemns them.

6. As just a small example of the movie's dishonesty; in the film Scopes is put in jai... but not in real life. (Bryan dies on the courtroom floor as another example; of which the movie replete from beginning to end. Bryan is asked if he's ever read the 'Origins' by Darwin; he says no, he doesn't need to read stuff like that. In fact Bryan had read Origins many years earlier. And on and on it goes.)

7. In my own opinion this is the most blasphemous movie the americans have ever produced. (As Henry Miller referred to his own work; 'it's a gob of spit in the face of God.)

8. H. L. Mencken (in his obituary of b.) said of Bryan; "he was filled with an almost pathological hatred of all learning..." (Bryan was a highly educated man; and this shows you the kind of price you pay for denying the lunacy of darwinism.)

9. Highly recommended. Christians need to realize evolutionists are lying through their teeth when they promote darwinism as a fact... and that they will go to any lengths to spread lies about both evolution and creation.

10. - but even this movie gives glory to God in its own way. It shows us the truth of what the bible says; "no one speaketh the truth, no not one." (and "the poison of asps is under their tongue.") The bible tells us men (naturally) do not tell the truth if they think it will hurt them; and that they lie whenever they think they can gain from that lie.

11. - the movie came out in 1960. I wonder what influence it had on provoking the creation movement? (The play came out in 1955.) The Genesis Flood came out in 1961. (Although I think it had been several years in the writing.)

12. I assume the movie (and the play?) were produced to 'coincide' with the 100th anniversary of the publication of the 'Origins.' There was a big conference in Chicago in 1959.

13. I'd like to ask christian liberals, who claim to believe in evolution a question. If evolutionists are so willing to lie in a movie like this why do you believe what they say? Why do you believe they're being honest when they write about evolution? Doesn't it ever occur to you that they're lying?

14. - that e's have to resort to lies, deceit and mockery is surely proof they have no scientific or rational arguments to make... it's evidence they don't believe their own theory.

15. - when christians send their children to government (humanist, evolutionist) schools they're robbing their childrren of their inheritance; the priceless inheritance of god's word... of a christian education and a christian worldview.

16. - since evolution is a form of pantheism... and nature worship it has no place in gov. schools... (That are supposedly neutral in religious matters.)

17. - the fact teachers force this piece of propaganda on students is evidence the ruling mindset of the gov. schools is religious in nature. This movie isn't science and its blatantly false.... there is no legitimate reason to show it. It's being shown as anti-christian propaganda and as religious evangelism (for pantheism.)

Resources;

a. Summer for the gods: the Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion by Edward J. Larson - reviewed by Carl Wieland

The incredible universe

Quotes and comments;

1.“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D.M.S. Watson, 1929)

- Because this is such a famous quote in the literature I want to take a closer look at it.
- what does incredible mean? I don't know what W. meant by it but the dictionary definition is this;
"Not credible; surpassing belief; too extraordinary and improbable to admit of belief; unlikely; marvelous; fabulous."
- when the evolutionist says belief in creation is incredible; he's really saying the creator isn't worthy of belief, confidence or trust. (ie. not credible)
- the bible implies there is no such thing as an honest evolutionist, but this man comes closer than most as he admits the real reason he affirms a belief in Evolution.
- a thing isn't false just because someone finds it incredible.
- because a man thinks x is unlikely doesn't mean it isn't true. (The examples would be legion.)
- what Watson is really saying is this ''if something is beyond my ability to comprehend it can't be true..." but isn't he really saying; ''if I wouldn't like something to be true I will claim it's not true... I will claim it's too fantastic to be true." But it's not the extraordinary he objects to but a personal creator. (Which is why the bible strongly implies there are no honest atheists; ie. no honest evolutionists. The bible affirms repeatedly that all men know god.)
- reality has nothing to do with our ability to comprehend it. (This is decidedly the case for the materialist. ie. since he's mere matter why does he 'think' he 'should' be able to 'comprehend' the universe? I can't see he has any answer to that question; certainly no logical, coherent or rational one.) This is simply fallacious reasoning. (It is true that if man has been created by god he has a basis for believing he can comprehend the universe.)
- in fact Watson naively assumes he should be able to comprehend the universe. (In my opinion this naive feeling has its source in the fact he was made in the image of god.) Not being theologically sophisticated he takes this 'natural' belief for granted. But it's surely the case that if he were mere matter he would have no such feeling. His naive belief witnesses to the fact he bears the image of god. But because he doesn't want the creator to be Lord in his life he can't give god his due, he can't credit god for his emotional, intellectual and spiritual make up.
- what's incredible is not the creation, but man's stubborn refusal to admit it.
- of course, if instead of teaching evolution in our schools kids were taught that men created the earth (in some terraforming project) they'd say; "wow, that's incredible." I don't think they'd find it hard to believe at all. (It's only the identity of the creator that makes men reluctant to accept the idea of creation.)

Evolutionists as Zealots

I want to discuss a brief quote by the evolutionist and anti-creationist Ben Bova.

"Already the creationists are using political clout to tamper with biology teaching. Give them the political power and they will outlaw any ideas that they do not agree with. Evolution is merely one of many ideas that these zealots attack.” (B. Bova, Omni magazine, 10/1980, p. 35)

Comments;
- you notice how no one refers to themself as a zealot :-)
- so I ask you does this 'observation' strike you as scientific? People like Bova like to insist all of life should be scientific; but this is a mere pretense, and one they rapidly abandon everytime they get upset (zealous) about something. They jealously guard the political advantages they have gained in the last couple generations. The zealously guard their faith against all criticisms and opposition.

- the first pretense of this quote is that evolution doctrine is scientific and that creation doctrine is not. (In fact evolution isn't science but philosphy; and ancient philosophy at that. In addition it's anti-scientific; as it's opposed to some basic laws of science; ie. the law of biogenesis, the laws of Thermodynamics, etc.)

- Bova convenientyly ignores the fact if matter is all that exists truth does not and cannot exist. If he were true to his evolutionary worldview (wview)he wouldn't pretend there was any truth or falsehood involved in this (or any other) issue. (Atoms whirling through space can't be true or false, lie or tell the truth. If all is matter there can be no reality, only varying perceptions of the data.)But he likes to preach too much to be consistent with what he believes. He ignores the fact if matter is all there is there can't be right and wrong. Materialism denies the existence of moral truth; but yet Bova (in his zeal) conveniently 'forgets' this. The materialist who moralizes (which is what he's doing) is the biggest hypocrite going.

- Bova ignores the fact that zealous evolutionists have used political clout to throw creation doctrine out of the schools; have used it to attack christianity on a daily basis in those same schools... and have effectively have it outlawed. (So great is the zeal of atheists for their philosophy of life.)

- once upon a time it would have been called 'taxation without representation' to be have no say in what goes on in your community. I guess the idea you can pay to have your opponents force their philosophical views on you is scientific. Apparently bova believes this kind of tyranny is scientific. (We see here why government schools are an abomination. People should pay for the education they want; not get anti-christian education for 'free.' The control of education should be a local matter; in fact an individual or family matter.) There is nothing 'scientific' about a handful of bureaucrats in washington or ottawa deciding what children should be taught. This idea is no more scientific than the theory of evolution; both are elitist philosophies of life that give power to the political elite. But then again; maybe oligarchies are inherently more scientific than decentralized democracies :-)

- never mind that the zealots of the new PC religion are everyday using their poltical power to ban everything they don't agree with.

- Bova calls creationists zealots. This is merely rhetoric; and poor rhetoric at that. Zeal just means ardor, passion; and is cloesly connected to the more commonly used word jealous.

- evolutionists like to brand creationists as zealots; but no one promotes and defends their beliefs with more jealous ardor than evolutionists. Their use of the word zealot isn't accurate, but merely defamatory.... mere name calling. (Is there anything scientific about calling people zealots? is that a scientific term?)

- Bova apparently believes only minorities can be zealots; or that the state religion (of Darwinism) should never be resisted. (Zealots were originally a small group in Israel who resisted the Roman occupation.)

- you might have noticed that no one calls themselves a zealot. This is a term reserved exclusively for others. (This shows the hypocricy of the usage. If a term is only ever used for one's opponents we see evidence of hypocricy.)

- apparently the 'idea' evolutionists can take money from creationists (by force) and use it to propogate evolution is science :=) Such a use of Statist tyranny can't be defended by science. (Despite the pretense of 'scientific socialism' postulated by Engels and Marx.) The idea schools should be Statists institutions has nothing to do with science. (Neither does the idea of tenure :-)

- Bova seems to forget that on this basis of his own wview he is only a clump of matter, a cloud of atoms falling through space. He forgets he has no intellectual basis for any of his pronuncements. Only if there is a creator can there be truth, morality, ethics, reality and justice. If matter is all there is ''whirl is king."

Creation vs. science so called

An item I read recently on the Web caught my attention; not for its profundity but for its absurdity.

1. "...to require teachers to give serious consideration to creationism is as unjustified as requiring them to teach other doctrines – such as astrology, alchemy and phrenology...” (Stephen G. Brush, The Science Teacher 4/1981, p. 33)
- this is comical because all three of these (what B. calls pseudo-sciences) were once considered science; and cutting edge science at that.
- the bible condemns and forbids astrology; and did so while it was considered the science of its day.... when it was very influential in the highest political circles of the ancient world. The bible forbad astrology long before John Dewey and the Humanists came to town. (In fact astrology is just the idea men are controlled by material forces; which in fact is very similar to modern secular beliefs of environmental determinism.)
- one of the major reasons science developed in the west was because the bible forbad magic and astrology, numerology and fortune telling.
- Phrenology is an expression of materialism; which the bible is utterly opposed to. P. was intended to be an empirical and scientific psychology; a secular substitute for ethics and for biblical morality. It was based on the idea there is no mind as such, and that mental abilities are really just actions of the brain; that it's the phyaical brain that is all that matters. (Not much different than the ideas of our day in fact. In fact something akin to phrenology IS taught in the schools. If matter is all that exists; if there is no mind but only brain, then some form of 'phrenology' is all there is left to the materialist. It makes little difference whether he's 'reading' internal configurations' or external bumps.)
- Alchemy of course was considered hi-tech science at one time; even if it was surrounded with all kinds of magic, ritual, superstition and the like. (One might call it a precursor of the modern idea of inorganic evolution; an idea I consider as absurd as alchemy... if not more absurd as the changes in inorganic evolution are supposed to have occurred without any intelligent assistance :-)
- the bible tells us to judge men by their fruits; ie. by the lives they lead... not by the bumps on their skull. (And not by the words they speak; their 'pc' professions.) As always the bible is far superior to any of the humanist substitutes men invent to replace it.
- the true science of orgins is creation. The Truth of the matter is the world was created. It's only because men have rebelled against their creator that they reject creation for the humanist substitute of evolution. Calling e. science doesn't make it true. (Which it obviously isn't; having been refuted more thoroughly than any theory on record.)
- In fact many pseudo sciences are taught in the government schools; ie. Marxism, materialism, evolutionism, and the like.

Note; quote taken from 'The Baloney Detector: your guide to clear thinking' (A valuable online resource; where David Coppedge uses the evolution/creation debate to teach people thinking skills... and how to read more wisely.)