“Jesus of Nazareth: An UnRealistic Portrait”

So. Paul Verhoeven has discovered some old antiChristian calumnies about Jesus, and thinks they are worthy of a(nother) blasphemous retelling. Ho-hum.

Expelled: Further Thoughts

I’ve been reflecting some more this week on Ben Stein’s Moore-ish documentary, Expelled.

One thing that unsettles me about its approach is its snide sarcasm. It approaches the subject from the vantage point of wronged professors and violated freedom.

I think a better starting point is the wonder expressed by the psalmist (Psalm 19): “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.” Or the positive affirmation of Paul (Romans 1), that “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.”

I also think that this movie illustrates the weakness of the ID approach. It’s a compromise that can make no one happy. It pretends not to be based in religion, and to be merely interested in pointing to evidence of design, without suggesting who or what that designer might have been. If that’s the case, why should Stein sneer at Dawkins’ hypothetical suggestion of an alien invasion? If you have a particular designer in mind, why be afraid to name Him? Obviously, because that gets to the point of special revelation, which is clearly religion, and they want to be seen as “scientific.”

There is, of course, a route they can go which is neither “religious” nor “scientific,” and that is the field of philosophy of science. It’s a broad field, with room for all sorts of discussions. Why not encourage proliferation of classes in the philosophy of science so that the implications of science, ethical issues, and other interpretative issues could be freely discussed and debated?

Intelligent Design^TM is a compromise, I say, that makes no one happy.

Evolutionists dismiss it as “Creationism,” despite the fact that some of its proponents, notably Michael Behe, regard themselves as evolutionists. It matters not to mainstream evolutionists whether you think God created the world in six days, six thousand years ago, or whether you accept their timeline–what they cannot accept is the idea of God directly intervening in the cosmos. If you believe in that, you are a Creationist in their mind. They don’t object to a Deistic or Pantheistic version of God, who is identified with the forces of the universe or who operates in the background; it’s the idea of a God who acts with intent that is incompatible with their understanding of how the universe operates.

Intelligent Design^TM, especially the variety that would admit to theistic evolution, cannot satisfy the Creationist, either, because it presents the same problems as mainstream evolutionary theory. It allows for the existence of death prior to the introduction of sin by a moral choice by man. It can accept death as part of God’s design for creation. If that is so, there was no Fall. If no Fall, no Redemption. For more on this line of thought, I’d recommend John Templeton Baldwin, ed., Creation, Catastrophe, & Calvary (Review and Herald, 2000).

I don’t believe in Creation because of evidence of irreducible complexity–I believe in it because I accept God’s Word. I accept the Bible’s teaching that God created the heavens and the earth. He knew what he was doing. He had a plan. The world was as he intended it to be, without death, without sin, without suffering. Then came sin. And yet he didn’t abandon us, but chose to send his son to become one of us, to die for our sins. He is risen from the dead, and he will come again, and he will recreate this world, and restore it to his original design.

I don’t mind if scientists uncover things that suggest evidence of that design. I will wonder and marvel at them and say, “Praise God.” And because of that, I think I’m more satisfied by Louie Giglio’s video, How Great Is Our God, than by Ben Stein’s Expelled. The one leads me to praise God, the other tempts me to curse men. Which is the better outcome?

Ashcroft and Torture

Tompaul Wheeler points us to a report of a visit by John Ashcroft to Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois. There was a lively Q&A. Here’s a sample:

ME: First off, Mr. Ashcroft, I’d like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students.  It was uncalled for–we can disagree civilly, we don’t need that. (round of applause from the audience, and Ashcroft smiles) I have here in my hand two documents.  One of them, you know, is the text of the United Nations Convention against Torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about “lasting physical damage”…
ASHCROFT: (interrupting) Do you have the Senate reservations to it?
ME: No, I don’t.  Do you happen to know what they are?
ASHCROFT: (angrily) I don’t have them memorized, no.  I don’t have time to go around memorizing random legal facts.  I just don’t want these people in the audience to go away saying, “He was wrong, she had the proof right in her hand!”  Because that’s not true.  It’s a lie.  If you don’t have the reservations, you don’t have anything.  Now, if you want to bring them another time, we can talk, but…
ME: Actually, Mr. Ashcroft, my question was about this other document. (laughter and applause) This other document is a section from the judgment of the Tokyo War Tribunal.  After WWII, the Tokyo Tribunal was basically the Nuremberg Trials for Japan.  Many Japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture.  And among the tortures listed was the “water treatment,” which we nowadays call waterboarding…
ASHCROFT: (interrupting) This is a speech, not a question.  I don’t mind, but it’s not a question.
ME: It will be, sir, just give me a moment.  The judgment describes this water treatment, and I quote, “the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.”  One man, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding American troops to obtain information.  Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country–exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptible for Americans to do–do you believe that his sentence was unjust? (boisterous applause and shouts of “Good question!”)
ASHCROFT: (angrily) Now, listen here.  You’re comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges.  We don’t do anything like what you described.
ME: I’m sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone’s face and pouring water down their throat…
ASHCROFT: (interrupting, red-faced, shouting) Pouring!  Pouring! Did you hear what she said?  ”Putting a cloth over someone’s face and pouring water on them.”  That’s not what you said before!  Read that again, what you said before!
ME: Sir, other reports of the time say…
ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read what you said before! (cries of “Answer her fucking question!” from the audience) Read it!
ME: (firmly) Mr. Ashcroft, please answer the question.
ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read it back!
ME: “The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.”
ASHCROFT: (shouting) You hear that?  You hear it?  ”Forced!”  If you can’t tell the difference between forcing and pouring…does this college have an anatomy class?  If you can’t tell the difference between forcing and pouring…
ME: (firmly and loudly) Mr. Ashcroft, do you believe that Yukio Asano’s sentence was unjust?  Answer the question. (pause)
ASHCROFT: (more restrained) It’s not a fair question; there’s no comparison.  Next question! (loud chorus of boos from the audience)