Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, April 14, 2008
Matt Barber :: Townhall.com Columnist
Darwin's Kool-Aid
by Matt Barber
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


There's a shakeup in the cult of neo-Darwinist pseudo-science, and that endearing, monotone high school teacher of “Ferris Bueller” fame is doing the shaking.

With his new feature documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” (opening in theaters April 18), Ben Stein — actor, economist, presidential speechwriter and all around really smart guy — squares off with some of the world's most prominent anti-theist elites as he gets to the heart of the question, “Who are we, and how did we get here?”

This is not your father's documentary. “Expelled” rocks the house both literally and figuratively. It's gripping, music-packed, comically wry and always entertaining. But its entertainment value is yet surpassed by its educational merit. Throughout the film, Stein boldly shines a light of honest inquiry, revealing time and again that Evolution's Emperor has no clothes. In his trademark deadpan fashion, Stein skillfully debunks the dogmatic neo-Darwinist programming we've all had relentlessly rammed down our throats ever since “Big Science” went bananas over that cute little Scopes Monkey.

Unlike Michael Moore's anti-Bush propaganda flick “Fahrenheit 911” — which sold us a lemon with deceptive editing techniques and staged confrontations — “Expelled” is intellectually honest, cerebrally stimulating and delectably provocative.

Nonetheless, there are those who won't like it, not one little bit.

Enter Richard Dawkins. Dawkins, a prominent evolutionist, outspoken atheist and the best-selling author of “The God Delusion,” is featured throughout the film. In one segment, he sits down with Stein for a heart-to-heart. After dancing around several pointed questions about how life began, Dawkins finds himself at a logical impasse with no surplus of sci-fi rhetoric. He's finally forced to concede that, indeed, an intelligent being may have created life on earth. However, that being could not have been “God,” but rather, it must have been some organic, alien life form. Of course, that alien life form has to have been a product of “Darwinian evolution.”

Through tears of wild laughter, audience members watch as Dawkins — apparently grasping the dizzying nature of his own circular argument — turns three shades of red and becomes purply tight-lipped.

Dawkins? … Dawkins? …

But apart from space aliens, the general consensus among the evolutionary scientists interviewed was that all life, including human life, likely began when lightening struck a mud puddle (you know, like Frankenstein but without all the prefab body parts). This was then followed by a series of unexplainable, unprovable and totally random events that occurred over umpteen million years, eventually resulting in … you.

Although “Expelled” indirectly makes a strong case for the scientific theory of intelligent design, its primary message drives home the need for academic freedom, intellectual honesty and open debate on all scientific fronts.

As the movie masterfully illustrates, we live in a cultural climate where secular elitists in academia, the media and the courts chew up and spit out anyone who dares to question the gospel according to Charles Darwin. They're absolutely terrified to follow the scientific evidence wherever it may lead.

They don't want to upset the morally relative applecart, which is loosely held together by the notion that we're all just a bunch of monkeys with an instinctive, biological excuse for all our behavioral choices. To them, life's a whole lot easier under the theory of evolution. Without a sovereign Creator to answer to, we get to scoot along and party hearty, free from accountability.

Consequently, it's no wonder “Expelled” has Darwin's disciples scurrying for the shadows. Those secular humanist one-trick-ponies in the media, throughout academia, on the blogosphere and elsewhere are in full damage control. They're doing everything possible to discredit the film before it even opens. It's even been reported that two major networks are refusing to cover the movie. (Gotta love that journalistic objectivity.)

So, if you happen to be one of those evolutionary fundamentalists who were “randomly selected” to evolve with a built-in blindfold and earplugs, and you're comfy with your very limited worldview, be afraid of this film — be very afraid. However, if you're willing to have your eyes opened and are interested in looking at all the evidence, then suck it up, wipe away that Darwinian Kool-Aid mustache and hang out with Ben Stein for a night. What do you have to lose?

For everyone else, “Expelled” is a must-see. If you're already a person of faith, prepare to have your faith strengthened. And even if you're not, you can't possibly walk away without at least admitting that the debate over who we are and how we got here is far from over.

So hold on to your hat. “Expelled” is nothing short of earthshaking. And, as the scientific community clearly recognizes, its tremors may be felt for some years to come.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
J. Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and also serves as Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Why do I come here?
Sometimes this site reads like the newsletter of the psych ward.

I look forward to seeing it.
I find it fascinating that people can't believe that you can both be smart, look at the evidence, and conclude that evolution did not happen how Darwin imagined. The only way to reach most of these people is through humor and satire.

Nobody knows how we got here. Nobody can prove how we started because it can't be recreated as most science can. However evolution can be disproven. The problem is when you point to these inconsistencies, the argument is either it is a genetic mutation or 'we'll figure it out eventually like the periodic table of the elements'.

The fact is there is a lot on this planet that can't be explained by evolution. Thanks to Ben Stein and I look forward to seeing this movie. I have a great deal of respect for Stein's intellect and how he uses it.

Politicians and science
I think it is atrocious for politicians, of ANY political stripe, to be advocating in favor of or against any scientific THEORY, solely because they like or don't like its alleged philosophical implications.

I think Al Gore should stay the hell out of climatology.

And I think conservative activists should stay the hell out of evolutionary biology.

How's that for a "Grand Bargain"?

Leave science to the scientists. If scientists find that global warming has (or has not) occurred, and publish their results in peer-reviewed scientific journals, that's all I care about. Political activists have NOTHING of value to offer to this scientific research; all they do is try to distort it for their purposes.

Likewise, there has been over 100 years worth of creditable, valid, research in evolutionary biology already, all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Political activists should not be second-guessing all of this, just because they are uncomfortable with its philosophical implications.

America has become a great nation through its untrammeled support for science. Let's continue to leave science alone to do its thing.

Darwin not an atheist
I admire Ben Stein, and I think favorably of his movie, based on reviews, and publicity. Free speech, and free inquiry is everyone's basic right. The entire Politically Correct movement is nauseating.

That said, Darwin was never an atheist, nor did he believe his theory disproved the existence of God. He came from a religious family, and was deeply concerned that his findings would undermine the church.

All the rest of the continuing flap over evolution is the product of obnoxious atheists (an alternate religion) on one hand, and some religious people who believe that the bible is science and history as well as a great moral textbook.

Steve L
"Likewise, there has been over 100 years worth of creditable, valid, research in evolutionary biology already, all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Political activists should not be second-guessing all of this, just because they are uncomfortable with its philosophical implications."

I think that the point of this movie is to show that there is PLENTY of SCIENTIFIC evidence that is disregarded because it doesn't support evolution. There has been over 100 years of research. I studied it and did my senior thesis on it in high school and was questioned by someone who did his PhD thesis on evolution.

There is evidence that disproves evolution equal to evidence that proved the earth orbited the sun instead of the other way around. If you bring up the evidence that runs contrary to the evolution narrative, you will not get a job as a scientist in a school.

The scientific community is incapable of policing itself because of institutionalized bias. I believe that is what this film will be about.

Why...
...should evolution, something that has NOT been observed, yet is shoved down the throats of young, impressionable minds, be taught in schools? Why is it continually, matter-of-factly presented as FACT and not a THEORY? There is NO evidence you can produce of a phenomena occurring in nature WITH NO HUMAN INTERVENTION that one SPECIES is transforming into another SPECIES...

...The reason evolution, and only evolution, is taught, is because people who don't want to accept the existence of OR BE ACCOUNTABLE to a higher power hold all the cards...

SteveL
"Leave science to the scientists..."

Fine. Let's leave REAL science to the REAL scientists, individuals who are truly seeking out answers using REAL scientific methods to achieve REAL scientific ends, AND HAVE NO OTHER AGENDA.

Where we came from
can never ever be answered, so a little humor is fitting.
Something, however, WAS created some way.

For the evolution side there is FREY(top post)who has chewed his tether and escaped from his ward.

SteveL
How about I believe evolution is the source of life when *someone proves it*.

So far we are not even 1/1000th of the way there.

For those who believe in the 'magical protein puddle' but then scoff at Christians:

Even if a protein chain forms correctly to reproduce, if it fails to the whole process *must begin again*. Its not like lab work where you can simply resume where you left off, its all or nothing-life or bust.

Lets see if we have the 'scientists view' correct:
Mysterious protein puddles are completely scientific and shouldn't be questioned, but a real person who lived 2000 years ago is fable.

Got it.

Evolution Is Finished
Inteligent Design does not have to be taught in our dumb government schools. The scientific evidence that shows evolution is impossible should be taught.

As far as evolutionary biology and all those papers, there is not one piece of scientific evidence that shows any kind of animal has ever changed into a different kind (i.e. a fish to a lizard or a squirrel into a cat, etc.). There is an infinite number of examples of kinds only producing their own kind. You are not a scientist if you choose the "theory" that has no evidence over the theory that has an infinite number of evidences. This is called blind faith, not science.

So called "evolutionary biology" only demonstrates differences in kinds of animals. They NEVER, EVER, EVER show new genetic information being produced. New info is a must for evolution to work and their is not one example that any new info has ever been produced.

P.S. Radioisotope dating is a scam and I can prove it to anyone who will watch my power point for half an hour.

Run For The Hills
We are examining ALL the pseudo-science books and preparing our children to ask embarrassing questions to all blind faith evolutionary propagandists.

Get ready to be asked unanswerable questions. Like "what makes you think cows walked into swamps and turned into whales"? LOL What a stupid idea, yet how many so called intelligent people believe it!

Litmus test
Evolution is so passe...

The crux of the issue was never "evolution" even the most "primitive" farmer in the so called "Dark Ages" knew that one can breed animals over time for more desireable traits.

At issue has always been the Dogma of "Survival of the fittest" as the mechanism that determined the "evolution" of new traits.

Simply bracketing the whole question of Micro vs. Macro evolution, Survival-of-the-fittest as a theory has never been substantiated nor demonstrated as remotely viable in any meaningful way as the actual agent/engine of change/evolution... yet the philosophical underpinning of Survival-of-the-fittest is the key theory advanced by Darwin.

And, it is survival-of-the-fittest that guides the philosophical conclusions drawn from the "Origin of Species" that drives folks such as Dawkins to radical atheism.

pastafarinA
You are amazed when anyone with more than a one celled brain shows you how to turn on a light.

Tell us, what were we before we were humans?
Tell us, what were cats before they were cats??

Don't rupture your 1 cell now!!


Hey pastafarian
Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, 74% believe in evolution.

So this means that 26% of higher educated people don't buy evolution. That is a pretty high number considering that if you don't tow the company line in college, you usually don't get to higher degrees.

You, (in a very elitist manner BTW) make the assumption that anyone who disbelieves evolution must be a Moron Christian. I'm not a Christian or a moron and I don't believe in evolution. Believing in god OR evolution requires faith, since neither can prove it's point.

I would like to see scientists allowed to investigate matters without being attacked by Christians or the dogma of the pseudo intellectual "keepers of the faith" at the local university.

Check out Michael Creamo's book "Hidden History of the Human Race" to see just how much evidence that refutes evolution has been swept under the carpet by supposed intellectual people.

An idiot that is educated is just an educated idiot!

pastafarian
You honestly don't believe that quoting that statistic makes your assertion more credible, do you?

You're going to have to come with a whole lot more than your ad hominems...

basic
"what makes you think cows walked into swamps and turned into whales"?

Dude. Know your enemy a little better than that. I mean, this is grade school stuff.

The sort of critical analysis everyone here is clamoring for starts in your own head people.

Conspiracy against xians, or the best model we have for explaining the universe as we have experienced it up to a given point (not to mention the foundation of our understanding of the universe, in so far as it has matured to this moment in time)?

Now that we are further along in our understanding of the secrets of the universe, we adjust the theory and other ideas in an attempt to explain more, understand further, etc. Faith and reason are strange bedfellows by definition. One will accept the unexplainable without futher questioning, the other will go to any length necessary in it's attempt to explain.


Pastafarian
When you can provide evidence of species-to-species evolution, then I might be willing to listen to you. BTW, the evidence you provide must show this taking place in nature without human intervention.

I won't throw any pearls your way WRT creation. You obviously have no desire to listen.

The Onion
Oh dear, have I stumbled upon some offshoot of The Onion here?

I'm definitely in the "still looking about" category, though I just read The God Delusion and find it fascination. I'm certainly going to be checking this film out out of intellectual interest in being aware of all the various viewpoints.

But this column did the film no favors. There's such a basic misunderstanding of what evolution is about (and that I learned in Middle School!) that the rest of it is rendered laughable.

I would be interested to see Dawkins red-faced and flustered as it would be the first time I've ever seen that and a stark contrast to his poise in every other circumstance I've seen him in.

The fact is that no good scientist will say "God does not exist" but rather "God probably does not exist" because that's all science can do. So getting Dawkins to "admit" that God might have created life on earth isn't much of a shocker, as he freely admits it because he can't totally disprove it! That's why silly articles like this can try to show how weak a scientist argument is, because scientist always keep their minds open to possibilities, unlike theists. I can't help wonder whether "dancing around" the questions is a euphemism for "well-articulated, complex answers" but I can't make that assertion until I see the film.

Again--
Again, as I posted on another thread. IF and WHEN we have contact, and have real experts communicate with any other form of intelligent life forms from another planet, galaxy, etc.; then possibly some of the arguments dealing with evolution and creationism can be solved.

I don't know if and when this will happen, but it would be very enlightening. I just hope that it happens during my lifetime. Why, because I can see arguments for both sides. I have to add this; I am not a Christian. I believe in the Viking Gods of my ancestors. But I majored in the sciences in college, and if life was designed by a superior force, who or what was this "force or being"??????? I, like many others that I know would like some solid and proveable answers.

Faith & Science
I guess I've just never understood why people get SOO worked up over this debate. I actually believe in evolution and I also believe in God. I've never understood why it had to be one or the other.

Science is one of the greatest tools that man has at his disposal. That doesn't mean it's perfect. Just because something (ie. evolution) cannot be proven right now, doesn't mean that it's not true. And even if what you're trying to prove (evolution) turns out to be inaccurate, the scientific method will help uncover the actual truth, no matter what that truth is.

And if it's God, then so be it. But God has ALWAYS been just a matter of faith. It's your choice to believe in God as the Creator...or God as a member of a Holy Trinity...or whatever. But the basic definition behind "faith" says that you're believing in something DESPITE physical evidence. And that's fine...I've just never understood why people of faith wanted so badly to try saying that their faith can be PROVEN. Because if it could be proven, it wouldn't be "faith" anymore, would it?

Don't you think God in His wisdom might have completely made His existence UN-proveable?? So why keep trying?? It's faith, plain and simple.

Faith & Science, con'd...
And if you're worried about what your kids are being taught at school, then teach them at home to study...to learn what they're being taught in order to better educate themselves, but to also realize that it may not be perfect. What is the harm in that??

As long as you're reinforcing at home that faith is also important, then what's the problem?

So the fact that the movie
is a bunch of lies means....nothing to the good christo-fascists.

How typical.

Especially typical is the hack-edit job done on Dawkins.

Oh well--if you can't make a case for god: lie your butt off about evolution!

if the shoe fits
"I've never understood why it had to be one or the other."

Because the two are incompatible.

And "teach them at home," is not always so easy. Our tax dollars pay for public school, same as yours. Some parents both work full time and some kids come from single parent homes.

Clearly you have never been in the position of undoing and countering 12 years of public school destruction.

jonwes
No jonwes, you haven't stumbled on the Onion. Few people outside of Chicago know what you're talking about anyway.

And welcome to TH, where you can learn about life, reality, and clearly a life bigger than the liberal one to which you are generally exposed.

See the film. I'm looking forward to it. The "tiny, tiny minority," is rising up.

Earthshaking? Nah, total bore
Matt Barber: "So hold on to your hat. “Expelled” is nothing short of earthshaking. And, as the scientific community clearly recognizes, its tremors may be felt for some years to come."

Earthshaking? BWAHAHAHAHAHA. This film will play to empty theatres for a few weeks and then die the death of anonymity that it deserves, and the science of evolution will just keep on as it has for over a century. The scientific community will give it about as much notice as a bull gives a fly.

Barbar is either a lying shill or a complete ignoramus, as are most of the posters here. This movie is just the same old warmed over nonsense, with a little Darwin-caused-Hitler fantasy thrown in for good measure. It will appeal only to the deranged, the ignorant, and the stupid.



When you have to resort to conspiracy theories to explain your defeats, its time to get into a new ball game.

Verbivore...
I'm from Chicago and know about The Onion, so I thought it was pretty sunny when jonwes brought that up. You're pretty critical of him though, and for no need, honestly.

As for your comments to me, faith and science are not incompatible. If you truly believe they are, then why are so many people of faith trying so desperately to PROVE their faith??

And why would you SUDDENLY start 12 years into a child's education to start teaching them to have faith? It's not something that needs to be delved into at great lengths. Go to church on Sundays with your children. I'm not even sure what the point of your post was other than to say that you don't have time to teach your child about God.

Verbivore, con'd...
If I didn't make myself clear, I am also a man of faith. But I realize it for what it is: faith. It cannot be proven, and that's kind of the point.

God, if He exists (and I believe He does), has for some unknown reason chosen NOT to make himself very clear. While each faction of faith claims that they really know what God was all about, if that were true, then there would only be one religion. But there's not...it gets distorted by man. And apparently God is fine with that, otherwise He'd make Himself and His purpose known in a way that leaves no doubt. But He hasn't done that...and that's ok.

knight
...so you've seen the movie?

don't like it when your gods get exposed for what they are, do ya?

Note the Dichotomy
According to the those who favor intelligent design, life in all of its complexity is simply too sophisticated, too grand, too all encompassing for it to have simply happened, yet a being so complex, so sophisticated, and so grand as to be capable of creating life is just something that always existed, with no creation being necessary to bring it into existence.

God, it seems, can exist for all time, but life and the universe can't. How convenient.

science of evolution
that's kinda like "jumbo shrimp," right?

justpaul and dichotomy
Yeah, it's the evolutionist's versus the creationist's faith...

Back to the Movie
If you'd like to read Atheist religious dogma, and a screed so vitriolic you can envision the spittle flying from his lips as he typed, read Prof. Richard Dawkins' blog post about Expelled and his co-starring role. He is not a professional film critic, he has never heard of Ben Stein, whom he calls a "whining moron" and he thinks the producer did a "bait and switch" because his company registered multiple working titles as web domain names before his interview, and didn't use the "Crossroads" title in the end. This man, paid by Great Britain to promote they study of science within the U.K. to kids, actually spends all his time obsessively attacking all religions and attending Atheist conventions.
I notice neither SteveL nor Pastafarian, nor Knight of Bawa can cite any evidence, just call those of us debating the issue from a scientific evidence (not theological) viewpoint Christian Fascists and other nasty names. I have a Ph.D. in Anthropology. I am not a Christian. However, I do not believe there is any evidence whatsoever, or any statistical probability in chemistry, physics, or biology, to support Darwin's thesis beyond differentiation into races WITHIN species. All the finches are still not just birds, but finches. All the shells shown throughout time on the Evolution promoting websites are recognizably not just shells, but look like the one on the Shell Oil logo. Even zebras can still breed with horses or burros. Get the mathematicians looking at the evolution "peer reviewed" papers, and they can debunk them all as statistically impossible. You can't make even a section of DNA from "soup" amino acids, and there is no "survival advantage" in doing so, and no means of reproduction when you're done. Anyone call tell the difference between Mt. Rushmore and the "Praying Monk" of Camelback mountain in Phoenix. One is intelligently designed. The other isn't.

A question for the Deists
What evidence, other than the Bible, which can hardly be considered a factual source, does anyone have to prove that God did not create the world with evolution built into the system? Darwin himself says as much in his book. So what evidence do you have that proves this idea wrong?

Shoes
Evolutionary thought has been attempting for nearly 200 years to prove its case. It has not, because the evidence for it is simply not there. Mud doesn't magically bring forth life. Something out of nothing, or, if you'd rather, everything out of nothing all by itself is not possible.

The fossil record shows nothing by way of "progression" from "simple" types to more "complex" types of organisms. The so-called "geologic column" does not exist except in textbooks. The "evolutionary tree", or timeline, still has more blank space than otherwise-and a big question mark at its beginning. Even a cell is not as "simple" as was once thought, and to say that "we know evolution must be so but we haven't got the proof" is silly on its face. Either there is evidence for it, or there is not. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, affirmed both the literal six-day Creation as well as the horrible reality of Noah's Flood. Could He be a "great moral teacher" if He lied about history?

Fredoneverything.net has a great article or two questioning the merits of evolution, and he is no friend of creation. I suggest you read them; you will learn something.


Same ol Same ol
"I notice neither SteveL nor Pastafarian, nor Knight of Bawa can cite any evidence, just call those of us debating the issue from a scientific evidence (not theological) viewpoint Christian Fascists and other nasty names. I have a Ph.D. in Anthropology. I am not a Christian. However, I do not believe there is any evidence whatsoever, or any statistical probability in chemistry, physics, or biology, to support Darwin's thesis beyond differentiation into races WITHIN species."

Too bad every single scientific organization in the world disagrees with you, from physicists, chemists, biologists, and professional statisticians. There are more scientists named Steve who support evolution than there are scientists who deny it. The ID/creationism arguments have been refuted over and over again. If you are too lazy to research the subject and examine the evidence, you have no one to blame for your ignorance but yourself. All the blog comments and propogandized movies in the world won't change that simple fact.

Enough Already
So, Ben Stein makes a movie to intelligently present both sides of creationism/evolution.

So...

Why are you liberals all getting worked up over this? You spew out "Christo-Facist this and that" because that's considered the new "n-word" you can get away with saying without being sued over. Why are you trying to attack people with faith? I thought you were tolerant...

You know, see the movie, what could it hurt? I suffered through Michael Moore's movies because I was determined, with an open mind, to try to see things in a different perspective. I was mentally vomitting the entire time, but I did it like a grown up.

So, grow up. Watch the movie. Are you that narrow minded that you cannot hear both sides? Are you afraid the cocoon you wrapped yourselves in will be ripped open?

I am not religious, I know about creationism and evolution, and at least I can say honestly that I am no expert, no one is truly knows the entire truth of us and earth and the universe and why, and wouldn't it be interesting to find out more perspectives?

Are you that cowardly you have to attack Christians and reject the movie before you even gave it a chance?

Both Sides? Riiiiiight.
"So, Ben Stein makes a movie to intelligently present both sides of creationism/evolution.

So...

Why are you liberals all getting worked up over this?"

It's not "liberals" that are getting worked up about it. It is people who value good science and honest scholarship, neither of which is present in this film. It is the same old list of lies and distortions that we've all come to expect from the creationists. It is neither new, nor honest, and it certainly doesn't look at "both sides".

Science is not politics. There is only one side, the one supported by the evidence, and in biology that is evolution. The rest is just ignorant self-serving nonsense.


AliveInHim...
You wrote: "Jesus Christ, on the other hand, affirmed both the literal six-day Creation as well as the horrible reality of Noah's Flood. Could He be a 'great moral teacher' if He lied about history?"

You see, here's the thing: This is a physical world - and solar system, and galaxy, and universe - that we live in. So while I believe in God, I also realize that God used parables many, many, many times to try getting His point across. So are you telling me that we know with definitive proof which aspects of the Bible are facts and which are simply stories told to teach a general lesson? Does it say how long God sat around at His "desk" coming up with HOW to make everything? No, it doesn't...so why is it SOOOO horrible to believe that maybe - JUST MAYBE - God may have sparked life into being here on Earth, but let the nature (that God also created) take its course?

Just because the Bible says that Jesus said something, how is that to be taken as FACT? The Gospels all differ on certain events...if there's only ONE truth, then how/why do they differ?

It's not wrong or heretical to ask these questions...and it's not wrong to understand that there's no definitive answer to the questions. Faith is just that: faith.

Saying that Jesus "lied about history" is just as silly as saying that "Jesus told the truth about history." In those days, history was passed on more by word of mouth than by written documentation. And we've all seen what happens from a simple game of "telephone" -- the message gets distorted. There's nothing wrong with that unless you still try to take it as actual, literal fact. Rather, take the general message and live with that inside of you. THAT is the point....Not believing that some guy named Job lived for 3 days inside of a fish.