Light-work

Cambria's Dirty Little Secret

 
The "Cambrian Explosion" poses something of an evolutionary conundrum. Darwin's Dilemma, a DVD produced by Illustra Media, was released last month and provides an intelligent assessment of the problem.

The Cambrian period, dated from 542 to 488 million years ago (give or take a few million), presents a remarkable paleontological panorama. Prior to the Cambrian, the fossil evidence shows the presence of some sponges and what-not. But then in a geological flash, numerous phyla (distinguishable, defined, and developed body plans) burst onto the scene - hence the term, the "Cambrian Explosion."

The resultant problem for Neo-Darwinism is manifold. Certainly the absence of any fossil record of transitional forms is an obvious and perplexing issue. But there are some profound and no less troubling matters arising from our current understanding of data processing.

I watched the DVD last night, including the 60 minutes of bonus material. It's all good! It is well-suited to home-schooling (but is not going to hold the interest of most elementary and many middle school student), adult discussion groups, and for sharing with friends who are open and interested in "Intelligent Design." The militant Darwinist will dismiss it. But anyone who wants to be allowed to consider the evidence will appreciate the producer's focus on the fossil record itself and his restraint in posing solutions.

There is a great nugget tucked away in the bonus material. On the page for "Signature in the Cell" is a menu tab titled, "Interview with Stephen Meyer." His story about the programmer who said, "Someone has been here before," will prompt you to think about life and our Creator in new ways.

Want to spark some intelligent discussion with science minded friends? The decision about purchasing this DVD is no dilemma.

What Gets You Outraged?

Yesterday, we noted that Joe the Shouter was about to get his comeuppance. The House did not disappoint. Their most common punishments for members are expulsion, censure, reprimand or fine. But they decided to use a lesser measure, a "resolution of disapproval." Wilson's conduct was cited as a "breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House." The vote was, understandably, divided along party lines. I'm not sure if the Democrats have exhausted their outrage, yet. Presumably, they are now ready to get back to business as usual.

Here is an irony. Fox News has been showing a series of video-taped interchanges between Acorn staff members and a filmmaker and associate posing as a pimp and prostitute. Click here to watch one. A fourth videotape was shown last night and another is promised for today. The one from last night was outrageous! I have no doubt there will be an ample supply of spin and dissembling from those associated with Acorn. I am confident  that the film-makers and their work will be scorned and discredited.

But how can you watch these interviews and not marvel at Acorn staff members' nonchalance, even enthusiasm, while their clients outline a scheme that reeks of  debauchery? Where is the shock, where is the outrage? Where is the staff member who warns, "What you are doing is terribly wrong. You need to get your life headed in the right direction."

What a contrast between Acorn staff's casual response to gross immorality and the passionate ado of The House over a two-word breech of decorum. Mind you, I am not making little of House Democrats. Let them enjoy their diversion. But the quickness and intensity of their disapproval serves to highlight its absence at Acorn.

What a sad commentary on our society that many view immoral behavior with casual acceptance, even with a tinge of pride in their enlightened tolerance. The Apostle Paul dealt with something similar in what was the "sin city" of his time, Corinth. A young man was having a brazen affair with his step mom, and those who knew the parties involved were celebrating their enlightenment in accepting this as normal. Paul declared, "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst" (1 Cor. 5:1-2).

One of the litmus tests of the health of our society, and our churches, is our ability to lament sin. If the response of Acorn staffers is a window into the heart of our culture, heaven help us. When Jesus said, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matt. 5:4), He was talking about being broken-hearted by the things that break God's heart. My heart is broken by what these Acorn interviews say about who we are becoming. God forgive us.

Could a Terminator Reinvent Idolatry?

The fourth installment of the Terminator movie series is scheduled for release this May. Although the storyline of each movie reflects slightly different time-lines, a computer with artificial intelligence that realizes self awareness is central to each plot. This is not the first time men have spun tales about "when good inventions go bad." Frankenstein fits the profile, as does HAL in Space Odyssey, and a host of lesser lights from sci-fi movies screened during the cold war. But the Terminator series (and a TV spin-off, The Sarah Conner Chronicles) has made the possibility of men creating sentient beings seem believable.

Should the believable become real, a key stumbling block to idolatry would be removed. In yesterday's post, Idols are Dumb, we observed that the attraction of idolatry (which is self-worship) is compromised by the fact that an idol can't speak. So, when a man build's an idol to sing his praises, it bites that said idol has nothing to say!

What if a man could construct an image that speaks? And what if that image could declare the praises of his creator? And what if that image could come up with other witty things to say based upon its superior intelligence? An idol that speaks and is smart - what would men do if they beheld and heard such a thing? I am confident that virtually everyone would be totally smitten by the thing.

PM Netanyahu and "the Joker"

Last night, I watched the DVD, Epicenter, that is based on the book by the same name written by Joel Rosenberg. I especially found the segments from an interview of Benjamin Netanyahu to be informative and compelling. Mr. Netanyahu became the Prime Minister of Israel on March 31 and has a clear and settled understanding of Iran's intentions. The video clip from Glenn Beck is several years old but will allow you to listen first hand to this articulate and engaging leader without a teleprompter.

In his Mr. Netanyahu's view, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seeks to hasten the arrival of the Islamic Messiah by creating havoc and chaos. The destruction of Israel (little Satan) and America (the Great Satan) are vital to his plans. The acquisition of both nuclear weapons and an effective missile delivery system will dramatically improve his ability to achieve these ends.

Make no mistake - Ahmadinejad is crazy enough to relish the chance to use nukes. He is the living embodiment of "the Joker" as depicted by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. We are crazy if we think he is interested in a "sensible" resolution. I am glad that Israel has a leader who understands the threat and sees the need to take action. When Mr. Netanyahu does, he will probably be portrayed in the press as the crazy one. What a joke!

A Gift from the House of Mourning

There was nothing particular about today's date to suggest doing so. It was just time for me to watch the movie, United 93. This is not another typical piece of Hollywood schmaltz "based on a true story." A puzzle is assembled using fragments of knowledge even while admitting that some of the pieces are missing. Here is the account from writer/director Paul Greengrass of what transpired on United flight 93 before it crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on the morning of September 11, 2001.

The movie and accompanying documentary (featuring family members of those who died) left me silent, contemplative, sad, and uneasy. But United 93 gave me something else, a gift. Solomon once declared, It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, because that is the end of every man, and the living takes it to heart (Eccl. 7:2). There is a benefit that living people receive when they mourn and honor the dead. United 93 invites us to enter the house of mourning and to receive the gift of perspective.

The irony is striking, almost palpable, as we watch ordinary people doing ordinary things, all the while KNOWING what they do not, that these are the last precious moments of their lives. Who cannot watch and ask himself, "Could this be me? What is the measure of my life if this moment is it's finale? How will my final moments serve to define who I am?"

Don't watch this if you are emotionally tender right now. But if you want to put the strains and stresses of life into perspective, skip your next dinner-party and come to the house of mourning that is United 93. It will help.

Expelled & Exemplary

Yesterday, we hit the multiplex for the screening of Expelled, Ben Stein's expose of the bias against anyone daring to question the Darwinian explanation for the origins of life. Regardless of whether you are an unabashed evangelist or staunch critic of evolution, I recommend you give Expelled a fair hearing.

Let me be clear about what the movie is, and what it is not. This is not an evaluation of the scientific evidence that supports or questions the Darwinian thesis; Mr. Stein is not debating the relative merits of evolution or intelligent design. He is identifying a very clear and present danger to free speech - The climate in the halls of the scientific community is hostile, militantly so, to anyone who dares to question the prevailing consensus, ie, all life began from a single living cell which has produced the diversity of life we see today through the process of natural selection. Here is an extended trailer for the movie that gives a good overview of what to expect.

I find it fascinating to talk about the coming "great delusion" (see yesterday's post) and then see a clear, contemporary manifestation of the thing. The bias Ben Stein is exposing in one in which "the evidence which shall not be named" is refused a place at the table. A rigorous and robust examination of the data for and against competing theories of life's origins is disallowed. Unless you can salute the party line, you had best keep your mouth shut. Raise a question, lose your job! Does anyone, evolutionist or otherwise, think this is a good way to do science? Here's one more clip worth watching - it's an interview of Ben Stein by Glenn Beck from last year.

Narnia for Atheists? Pt. 2 of 2

The brouhaha over the movie, The Golden Compass, is more about the trilogy written by Philip Pullman titled His Dark Materials.  Several elements to the story in the third volume, The Amber Spyglass, will be starkly out of step with a biblically defined theism.  The two main characters, Lyra and Will, fulfill their destiny "to help all the ghosts out of the land of the dead forever" (p. 309).  As this is accomplished and the dead escape, Lyra explains, "All the particles that make you up will loosen and float apart ...you'll be out in the open, part of everything alive again" (p. 319).  So Lyra "saves" the dead by assisting them to dissolve into the cosmic consciousness.

The "bad guy" who's power is broken when Lyra and Will work their magic in the land of the dead is  called "the Authority" and the "ancient of days."  At one point in the story, angels reveal a great secret to an African king who recounts, "It shocked some of us, too, to learn that the Authority is not the creator.  There may have been a creator, or there may not:  we don't know.  All we know is that at some point the Authority took charge" (p. 210).  Near the book's end, Lyra and Will extricate the ancient of days from a crystal litter only to watch him loosen and dissolve.  Here is what follows:  "Only a few moments later he had vanished completely, and their last impression was of those eyes, blinking in wonder, and a sigh of the most profound and exhausted relief" (pp. 410-411).  Perhaps the author is suggesting that the Authority was actually relieved to resign his position of supremacy and grateful to Will and Lyra for assisting him to join the cosmic consciousness.

Mr. Pullman's trilogy does not depict the God, hell, and salvation I know about.  So, how then should we respond?  There's plenty of internet invective out there calling us to avoid the movie like the plaque.  That advice should be heeded by anyone who is going to simply take the family to the movie, buy the books, and devour them unchecked.  But are the only two alternatives "avoid it" and "swallow it?"  How about "examine it" or "refute it?"

We are sheltering kids when we should be equipping them!  The best response to this trilogy is to train your children to discern and evaluate different viewpoints and competing truth claims.  I have every confidence that the truth about God, hell, and salvation are not in jeopardy.  But, men's right belief in these things is always at risk when they are ill-prepared to defend them.

Don't let your heresy meters go berserk when I say this, but we need to contemplate what life would be like without God.  This is precisely what "the Preacher" does in the book of Ecclesiastes.  "Life under the sun," which is life-with-God-factored-out-of-the-equation, is therein manipulated like a Rubik's Cube and examined from every angle.  The beauty of life with God in the center is made more evident by measuring its opposite.   Solomon would tell us, "The best way to appreciate what you have in God is to take some time to think like an atheist!" 

This might not work for small children.  But if your children are older, what if you were to draw them into an examination of the world-view represented in the trilogy?  Could their interest be piqued toward preparing a reasonable defense?  Could they come up with good reasons for a Christian theism?  We need not cower because some men profess to prefer a world without God.  But it ought to sober us that men who know better can't convincingly explain why.  Why not use The Golden Compass as a provocation to make your family members (and yourself) an exception?

Narnia for Atheists? Pt. 1 of 2

In December, the first of the three books in the trilogy, "His Dark Materials," will show itself on the big screen.  The movie trailer shows high production values, acclaimed acting, and an epic scale that transcends worlds - the stuff of Harry Potter, Narnia, and Middle-Earth.  The book, "The Golden Compass," on which the movie is based, is the creation of Philip Pullman and this first installment looks like a holiday blockbuster in the making.  Alas, there is a brouhaha afoot.

Bill Donahue at the Catholic League has a few words for you, It's a ploy to market atheism to kids!  He sees the softening of the film's more offensive elements as a means to cancel parent's objections and get kids to buy the book.  He warns that this is a descent down a path that, by volume three, has the readers celebrating the defeat of the church and the death of God.  That doesn't sound too good.

Philip Pullman's religious views are not in the same catalog as C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien and should make us wary.  Here's what he says on his website:  "I don't know whether there's a God or not. Nobody does, no matter what they say. I think it's perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing God into it, but I don't know everything, and there may well be a God somewhere, hiding away.  Actually, if he is keeping out of sight, it's because he's ashamed of his followers and all the cruelty and ignorance they're responsible for promoting in his name. If I were him, I'd want nothing to do with them."

This summer I read all three books in the trilogy.  I did not then know a movie was coming.  But the popularity of the books suggested my need to "stay in tune" with what's affecting people.  I am not decrying Mr. Pullman's right to write what he chooses.  But parents have a right and responsibility to  choose what serves the best interests of their children.  In my next post, allow me to spare you the trouble of reading (and buying) the books, share with you a few excerpts, and help you make a wise choice.