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, May 05, 2008
Phyllis Schlafly :: Townhall.com Columnist
Ben Stein Provokes the Liberal Wrath
by Phyllis Schlafly
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the 'Ricci' decision hurt Sonia Sotomayor in the confirmation process?


Ben Stein is known to many as an actor on Comedy Central. But the funniest part about his recent movie "Expelled" is not any clever lines spoken by Stein but the hysterical way liberals are trying to discourage people from seeing it.

Stein's critics fail to effectively refute anything in "Expelled"; they just use epithets to ridicule it and hope they can make it go away. However, it won't go away; even Scientific American, which labeled the movie "shameful," concedes that it cannot be ignored.

The movie is about how scientists who dare to criticize Darwinism or discuss the contrary theory called intelligent design are expelled, fired, denied tenure, blacklisted, and bitterly denounced. Academic freedom doesn't extend to this issue.

The message of Stein's critics comes through loud and clear. They don't want anybody to challenge Darwinian orthodoxy or suggest that intelligent design might be an explanation of the origin of life.

Stein, who serves as his own narrator in the movie, is very deadpan about it all. He doesn't try to convince the audience that Darwinism is a fraud, or that God created the world, or even that some unidentified intelligent design might have started life on Earth.

Stein merely shows the intolerance of the universities, the government, the courts, the grant-making foundations and the media, and their determination to suppress any mention of intelligent design.

The only question posed by the movie is why, oh why, is there such a deliberate, consistent, widespread, vindictive effort to silence all criticism of dogmatic Darwinism or discussion of alternate theories of the origin of life? Stein interviews scientists who were blacklisted, denied grants and ostracized in the academic community because they dared to write or speak the forbidden words.

Liberals are particularly upset because the movie identifies Darwinism, rather than evolution, as the sacred word that must be isolated from criticism. But that semantic choice makes good sense because Darwinism is easily defined by Darwin's own writings, whereas the word evolution is subject to different and even contrary definitions.

The truly funny part of the movie is Stein's interview with Richard Dawkins, whose best-selling book "The God Delusion" (Mariner Books, $15.95) established this Englishman as the world's premier atheist. Dawkins is a leading advocate of the theory that all life evolved from a single beginning in an ancient mud puddle, perhaps after being struck by lightning.

Putting aside the issue of evolving, how did life begin in the first place? Under Stein's questioning, Dawkins finally said it is possible that life might have evolved on Earth after the arrival of a more highly developed being from another planet. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Phyllis Schlafly‘s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Yeah, I never seem to leave.
"See H. H. Bruce, "The Canon of Scripture"."
Why do I have to track down a book and supply YOUR answer to the question?

"No - it wasn't in the Jewish canon either."
Where did it come from, then?

The following books of the bible do not make Genesis look literal in any sense. "They continue just the same"; well, yeah, like this; "God made the universe--then this happened". HOW God made the universe is not confirmed in later writings.

"That interpretation disagrees with the nature of God as revealed by the Scriptures in their entirety, so it must be incorrect. God makes no errors."
Begging the question. I'll keep this short, but you can not take one part of the whole bible and attempt to prove that it doesn't mean what it says because of cherry-picked evidence from other parts of the bible. You will probably tell me that, no, you are using the WHOLE bible, and I will inform you that you are dead wrong because there are HUNDREDS of passages that are contradictory, logically absurd, or at the very least, completely go against the "nature of God" most Christians (and, I'm guessing, you) believe in. So, no, attempting to dismiss the obvious meaning of one passage because of a position sustained only by special pleading or selective evidence is not a valid argument. It says he was wrong; either he WAS, or the bible lies.

And yes, to that last part, I meant to say "just made UP".

BWM
After three days off, are you still here?! Don't know why I came back except that this window was open and I decided to refresh it before closing it.

"BTW, what determines what is scripture?"

See H. H. Bruce, "The Canon of Scripture".

"Is the Apocrypha scripture?"

No - it wasn't in the Jewish canon either.

"Regardless of the structure of the wording, the overall point is that the entire book [of Genesis] comes off as intending to not be taken literally, and I agree with lsb that even the people first entrusted with the knowledge regard it as so."

Hmm, he cited one authority as I recall. If it is metaphor, then why do the other books continue where it left off and also support the book's view of the relationship between God and Man? If it is part metaphor, then which part(s)? One can write declarative, narrative fiction, and one can tell a true story in poetry.

"And, again, the passage regarding God's attempts to find a help meet for Adam is written as a textbook definition of "trial and error"."

That interpretation disagrees with the nature of God as revealed by the Scriptures in their entirety, so it must be incorrect. God makes no errors.

"...unless you are telling me that the English translation actually just made what happened entirely"

Not clear here - is the end of this phrase missing?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.