Life Without Faith

It seems you can’t turn on your TV or visit your favorite internet sites without being bombarded with the latest misadventures of those wacky West Texas polygamists. Because of this, I had resolved to abstain from the redundancy and avoided making comments. However, an article on MiamiHerald.com, shines a light on an outrage that is not being covered by the mainstream press.

Here are some highlights:

“American taxpayers have unwittingly helped finance a polygamist sect that is now the focus of a massive child abuse investigation in West Texas, with a business tied to the group receiving a nearly $1 million loan from the federal government and $1.2 million in military contracts.”

“The ability of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or FLDS, to operate and grow is largely dependent on huge contributions from its members and revenue from the businesses they control…”

“… NewEra Manufacturing in Las Vegas, has been awarded more than $1.2 million in federal government contracts, with most of the money coming in recent years from the Defense Department for wheel and brake components for military aircraft.”

“NewEra, previously known as Western Precision Inc. and located in Hildale, Utah, also received a $900,000 loan in 2005 from the federal Small Business Administration, the data show.”

“In addition, JNJ Engineering, a company owned and operated by FLDS leaders, has made millions of dollars in Las Vegas, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported in September.”

“The company won $11.3 million in contract work from the Las Vegas Valley Water District; all but one of the project workers came from the twin towns of Hildale and Colorado City, Ariz., where most of the sect's 10,000 members live.”

Where is the outrage over these revelations? Why do we continually ignore atrocities that are done under the sheep’s clothing of religion? The US General Services Administration (GSA) has strict regulations for those awarded government contracts. According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), there are rules concerning race, gender, and the environment.

All “Hell” would break loose if a CEO was simply accused of doing half the things that were regular practices of Warren Jeffs. Can you imagine what would happen if a judge ordered the removal of 416 children from this CEO’s company? Would they be allowed government contracts?

The evils of the FDLS have been known for years. Several testimonies have been given and books written from escaped members. There are literally hundreds of excommunicated “lost boys” who were expelled simply because they became competition to the older men’s claim to the teenage girls. Still, the government funds their communities.

Apparently, not all polygamous husbands own a chain of hardware stores like Big Love’s Bill Henrickson. Many choose to fleece the government for assistance. According to The Eldorado Success, nearly half of the fundamentalists in Colorado City receive food stamps at a cost of over 3 million dollars a year according to an October 2004 article. Also healthcare dollars through Arizona’s AHCCCS program provided about 8 million dollars a year of aid. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has spent 1.8 million dollars for the paving streets and providing fire departments. During the 2004-2005 school year, $19,866.88 of government money was provided per child in the Colorado City School system.

The cult calls this practice “Bleeding the Beast.” It was practiced by Joseph Smith and his successor Brigham Young. Flora Jessop, who escaped the Colorado City branch, said that members are told to go on welfare because it is a way to get Satan to support God’s work. Why are we okay with this?

Perhaps, I should calm down. Maybe I should instead focus on the glorious first American visit of Pope Benedict XVI. It’s not like his church has any hang-ups with oppressing women and sexually abusing children.

Brother Richard

If you’re like me, you get sick of important issues being reduced to two minute shouting matches on the evening talk shows. For this reason, I am pleased to bring to your attention, a recent debate which took place at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs. It was part of the National Discussion and Debate Series. The debated resolution was: "Religion should have no place in politics or government." The moderator of the debate was Evan Thomas, Editor at Large of Newsweek.

In Favor of the Resolution:

Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Jacques Berlinerblau, Associate Professor and Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service

Apposed to the Resolution:

Chuck Colson, Founder and Chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries

Bishop Harry Jackson, Senior Pastor of Hope Christian Church

The debate has aired on a few PBS stations around America and will be broadcast on a few others through the next few weeks. It is also available online at the Miller Center Web site. I highly recommend it. (Here)

Also, you can now watch the video of the First Freedom First simulcast, Everything You Always Wanted to Know about the Separation of Church and State … but Were Afraid to Ask! (Here)

Brother Richard

Two important items are in the news today.

First, the image of a piece of toast was found on an ancient picture of Jesus Christ:

For some reason, this site seems to be read by a lot Christians. Perhaps it is because I used to be a minister; or possibly it is my many references to the Bible. Who knows why? My last post, which was simply my notes from the Expelled press conference (Here), generated quite a bit of email from believers. Many of which believe there are two equally scientific sides in the Evolution/Creation debate.

I would like to bring attention to all (believers and nonbelievers alike), four deceptive tactics being used to promote the movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Inoculated from these, you will be equipped to examine the evidence and make an informed decision.


1. Note the “talking head” double standard.

The hypocrisy of the righteous right’s pundits (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly) is blatant. They have all spoke about the glories of this movie. However, they dismissed and discredited Fahrenheit 9/11 and SICKo in their entirety because of Michael Moore’s inequitable tactics. They said his movies were nothing but leftist propaganda. Of course, most of these buffoons bragged about never watching the movies. However, when it comes to Expelled, they cry on and on about critics not focusing on the “issues” presented in the film. They can’t have it both ways.


2. Listen carefully to specific words used.

Second, in the post Clinton era of, “depends on what the definition of is, is,” it is important to pay close attention to the exact words people use in interviews. You will notice that Stein, the Expelled producers, and the talking heads are all careful to use the “Darwinism.” Excuse me, but there is NO theory of Darwinism. They often trick adherers to true science to use this word as well.

There is also no “Theory of Evolution.” Evolution is NOT a theory; it is an observable fact. There is no disputing that life on Earth has progressively evolved from simple to more complex over millions of years. Much like CSI detectives, scientists gather the evidence and construct a theory. The ONLY true theory, so far, is called “Natural Selection.” Again, let’s be careful to choose our words wisely and correct others who misspeak.

In contrast, the word, “Darwinism,” is a philosophical term, as in “Social Darwinism.” Using this phrase, the comparisons between Darwin and Hitler/Stalin are made. Darwin’s name was clearly used by these despots to justify their racist ethnic cleansing; however, their ilk was in practice long before Charles Darwin.

Here are some important excerpts from a Wikipedia article about social Darwinism:

“Despite the fact that social Darwinism bears Darwin's name and his works were widely read by social Darwinists, the theory also draws on the work of many authors, including Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics. Darwin himself gave serious consideration to Galton's work, but thought the ideas of "hereditary improvement" impractical. Aware of weaknesses in his own family, he was sure that families would naturally refuse such selection and wreck the scheme. He thought that even if compulsory registration was the only way to improve the human race, this illiberal idea would be unacceptable, and it would be better to publicize the "principle of inheritance" and let people decide for themselves.[2] In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex of 1882 he described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families, and commented on the effects of this, while cautioning that hard reason should not override sympathy, and considering how other factors might reduce the effect”

Herbert Spencer's ideas, like those of evolutionary "progressivism", stemmed from his reading of Thomas Malthus, and his later theories were influenced by those of Darwin. However, Spencer's major work, Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) was released two years before the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, and First Principles was printed in 1860. In regards to social institutions, there is a good case that Spencer's writings might be classified as 'social Darwinism'. He argues that the individual (rather than the collectivity) is the unit of analysis that evolves, that evolution takes place through natural selection, and that it affects social as well as biological phenomena.

In many ways Spencer's theory of "cosmic evolution" has much more in common with the works of Lamarck and Auguste Comte's positivism work than Darwin. Darwin's theory is concerned with populations, whereas Spencer's deals with the way an individual's motives influence humanity. Darwin's theory is probabilistic, i.e., based on changes in the environment that sooner or later influence the change of individuals in a collective sense, but do not have any single, specific goal. Spencer's is deterministic (the evolution of human society is the only logical consequence of its previous stage), fatalistic (it cannot be influenced by human actions), universalistic (social evolution follows a single path, it cannot skip or change any stages) and teleological (there is a final, perfect society that will be eventually reached). Darwin's theory does not equal progress, except in the sense that the new, evolved species will be better suited to their changing environment. Spencer's theory introduces the concept of social progress—the new, evolved society is always better than the past.”

I would also like to point out that much of the Hitler/Darwin comparisons in Expelled were plagiarized from a much better movie made by Dr. James Kennedy and his Coral Ridge Ministries. I think they should sue.


3. Listen carefully to the words not being used.

Ben Stein has been careful not to argue the fact of evolution. In fact, he does what many IDers have done, and creates two different types of evolution: micro and macro evolution. Microevolution, which Stein acknowledges, accepts there has been “adaptation” within species (i.e. Great Danes to Chihuahuas). Macroevolution, which Stein denies, is the adaptation of one species into another.

In many interviews, Stein changes the focus to the fact that Darwinian Evolutionists don’t have a good explanation on how life began. That’s because natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of life. It only theorizes how life progressed once it appeared. The theory of how life began is called “Abiogenesis.”

To digress a bit, believers in Biblical account of creation believe there was a lot more evolution than any “Darwinian” biologist. They proclaim that all variety of life within species occurred in the 4,000 years since Captain Stubing’s—I mean Noah’s boat ride. This is light speed compared to biologists who believe it took 12,000 years to get the variety of dogs alive today. Perhaps the Ark really was the Love Boat.


4. Notice the misappropriation of rights of free speech.

The forth and final point may be the most important. Stein and company continually try to focus the attention onto the rights of “Free Speech.” In the much publicized teleconference, it was pointed out that the Expelled movie was not attempting to disprove Darwin or prove any other argument. They simply felt it was important to let silenced scientists speak freely.

The issue is not about yelling fire in a crowed theater. The issue is true science. Only an idiot would not acknowledge the continual arguments and debates among scientists. In fact, part of the beauty of the scientific method, is the necessity of dispute. The fact is that NO ONE has ever presented or published (in scientific journals) a different theory of how life progressed on earth (evolution). NO ONE! IDers only point to gaps, misunderstandings, and past errors to castigate natural selection. I assure you that if anyone ever presented a falsifiable theory that disproves natural selection, they would not only be embraced by all scientists, they would win the Nobel Prize. So far their theories have been so bad that there not even wrong.

For more information, I recommend checking out the new site, Expelled Exposed.

Brother Richard

Below are my notes taken from the “invitation only” press teleconference for the movie: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

For the sake of time, I am not taking the time to edit the notes. So forgive me if something does not make sense or I use bad grammar. I may even attribute a quote to the wrong person. Also, to avoid confusion, I will try to put my comments in parenthesis. I have a lot more I would like to say, but I will save it for another post. The purpose of this post is simply to get the facts out.

Begin Teleconference:

Introduction was given by Paul Lower. He was also the marketer for: The Chronicle of Narnia and Mel Gibson’s, Passion of The Christ.

Comment is made that according to Blog Pulse, the movie is the number one topic in the blogosphere.

The producers state that the purpose of this movie is to reveal what has become a modern day witch hunt. That many scientists are being fired because they simply question Darwin’s theories.

They also speak of the social implications of Darwinism and blame it as one of the causes for Hitler and Nazism.

Ben Stein is asked what he would say to his fans who question whether or not he has lost his mind. “Yeah I probably lost my mind a long time ago. Probably in 1958.” Everyone laughs.

Stein challenges anyone to show him any evidence for Macroevolution. They he clarifies it and says mammalian evolution (Sorry Tiktaalik).

One of the producers says the goal of this movie is not to disprove Darwin or to prove any other theory. It is to show that scientists don’t have free speech.

Stein says that he thinks Darwinism is politics masquerading as science.

They dealt quickly with the accusations being made by scientists featured in the movie. First is the claim that the interviews were conducted under false pretenses. They say that this is not the case. All in the film signed releases. (This is the same disclaimer given by the producers of Borat).

Stein points out that you can’t be misquoted if you make your statements on film. (No mention on how film can be edited or the use of cutting other visuals into the film)

They speak of Dawkins trying to deny his belief in panspermia. They say he said that it could be an, “intriguing possibility.” They also infer that this is Dawkins saying that Intelligent Design is possible.

Producer Mark Mathis said that all the complaints about the film are just side elements and diversions. They have nothing to do with the truth in the film. All the complaints are non-issues.

Someone asked Stein about him stating that he is not like Michael Moore. Stein says that the movie should have contained more about Darwinism and Nazi Germany. He thought the producers used extreme restraint.

Another Producer, Logan, said that Darwinists who resist and fight the Hitler comparison are guilty of their own form of holocaust denial.

The question is asked if Darwinism leads to Nazism.

Stein says no, but that Nazi’s thought they were fulfilling Darwin’s goals.

Stein also comments on eugenics and selective breeding. He says it was inspired by Darwin and used to reduce the Negro population.

The question is asked about Dawkins and Myers and their reports on Myers being “expelled” from the movie.

Mathis says that the screenings are “invitation only.” (However, you could get tickets on their website).

Mathis says they knew Myers and Dawkins were going to attend the screening and decided to make an example of Myers. This is because Myers is an outspoken proponent of firing scientist that question Darwin. He also points out that Dawkins signed in under the name “Clinton Dawkins,” but they let him in anyway.

Mathis again points out that these arguments are not the important issues. They have nothing to do with the facts of the content of the movie. He also points out that he had a personal grudge against Myers and he wanted him to have to pay for the movie. He points out that he let Michael Shermer attend another viewing and that Shermer enjoyed the film.

Stein says these complaints are just red herrings. Does the movie make sense or not?

Mathis says that after the incident, Dawkins thought he was profound for asking why Myers was “expelled” from the movie. Mathis said he thought, “Is that the best you got?” He was amazed that Dawkins didn’t have any comments on the facts of the movie. He had just been delivered a devastating blow to his thoughts and career.

Stein points out that Dawkins knew who he was. (I guess this is a response to Dawkins’ saying he was unaware of his American popularity).

Then out of the blue, PZ Meyers crashed the party. I am not sure how he was able to speak. We were told that everyone was muted. The producers stumbled a bit and it was quite amusing.

The producers state that he (Myers) is uninvited and not welcome. Myers states that he wanted to confront them for lying. They interrupt him and again say he is guilty of evasive tactics.

Myers points out that long before Martin Luther, anti-Semitism was present in the world. That Jews had been killed for years before Darwin. He accused the producers of trivializing history. (I would have liked to ask what they thought of Gibson's Jesus movie and it being based on "passion plays" which were used to kill Jews).

Myers was told to be silent. He was told to do the honorable thing and be quiet. He could listen and if they had a question they would ask him. Myers said they were being dishonorable and lying. Myers then left the conversation and said that any reporters that wanted to talk to him could email him. He gave his email address.

Once Myers was off the line, one of the producers acted disappointed and wanted to take all Myer’s complaints and knock them down one by one.

Ironically they again discuss freedom of speech.

The producers said their film was having an impact in the political arena. They held a screening in Florida for lawmakers. They discussed the Academic Freedom Bill that Florida is considering.

The question is asked, if the issues are just about science, then why are so many Darwinists upset? Why do they have such passionate anger? Mathis says that Darwinism is a worldview. Scientists like Myers and Dawkins are scared because their atheistic worldview might come crashing down on their heads.

The final “soft ball” question is asked, “What do we do next to help make a change.”

Logan (another producer) says that people needed to support the film. They need to go see it. It is a very important priority. (Selling tickets perhaps?)

Mathis asks why we are letting science be controlled by these Doctrinaire Materialists. Do we want to hand over the creation of the world to a worldview like atheism? Let your views be know to legislators. Scientists should not be persecuted for asking questions. Hopefully, even if someone has an atheist view, they should ask maybe there is something there.

Mathis closed by saying the expelled scientist need legal protection. They need to get funding so they can investigate their ideas (let’s look at the money the Discovery Institute raises as compared to true scientists).

End Teleconference.

Boy, I have a lot of things I would like to say. I'll save them for another time.

Brother Richard