The "Constitutionality" of Intelligent Design

We recently watched a new movie called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" that was made in documentary style. It was hosted by Ben Stein, the "dry eyes, clear eyes" guy, and was a very interesting movie about the freedoms that we are losing. The vehicle that he used to demonstrate his point was that of the supposed debate between the theory of evolution and that of intelligent design, and how this supposed debate is being handled.

As he goes through the process of making the movie, he speaks with 5 or 6 people who have been fired, or expelled, for saying that it is possible that the creation of life and its progression was through intelligent design. He also speaks with several others who are strong supporters of "Darwinism" and the theory of evolution.

The first thing that I wanted to say about this subject is, "Doesn't Darwinism deny the natural laws of science"? Most scientists would disagree with me on this, and there's a great probability that I'm wrong. I do only have a high school diploma of course, so I'm no where near as educated as these scientists. But I seemed to be under the impression that the second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will intend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. What that means in laymans terms is that things left alone in nature turn to chaos.

Take a gallon of water and a little bottle of food coloring for example: The water, when left alone, is at an equilibrium. When the food coloring is added, there is no more equilibrium because all of the food coloring is in one spot. Through diffusion, the food coloring mixes with the water until it reaches equilibrium, and at that point, the entropy is at its maximum for that system. Now that may not seem like chaos, but if we were to look at it from the molecular level, it absolutely is. The molecules of the food coloring will spread out as far as they can from one another to the point that if the system were large enough, you wouldn't see the food coloring at all. The smaller the system, the more apparent the food coloring. This is because each molecule has its own energy and wants to get away from the other molecules that are the same as it is. This is very chaotic.

Does that apply to evolution and the claim of the "Darwinists" that say that there's no possibility of intelligent design? I believe, and of course I could be wrong, that it does. When asked about how life began, many will say "the big bang." Others have other ideas, but the point is that if there were no intelligent design, it would lead to chaos. Let's take the big bang theory for example, we've all heard it in our indoctrinating text books at school: All the matter in the universe was crammed into this tiny space that was possibly smaller than the period on this page and blah blah blah. All of a sudden, the matter expanded and viola, here's the universe. Okay, so somehow, all the land and water on this earth was organized, not to mention other planets, stars, and entire solar systems as well, all somehow in perfect order. That's strange to me. How did they end up in order? According to the laws of science that we can observe, things tend to chaos, to disorder, until the entropy is maxed and equilibrium is reached. So how do we have this perfectly organized universe from a huge explosion?

Let's take that one step further and assume that this really is what happened. How did land seperate from water? Why is it just water, and not hydrochloric acid that fills our oceans? Why is it that we have salt water in the oceans, but somehow, in all of this chaos of creation, we have fresh water in the streams, rivers, and lakes? Shouldn't these elements, atoms, and molocules all have diffused equally and given us some soup of atoms? That's what it was before apparently. How, if things tend toward chaos, did it become so organized? Any homemaker knows that without effort, control, and work, something so small as her house will tend to disorder. Why is the universe different?

I bring this all up to show how impossible these theories really are. And these are just the theories of how the universe came to be, not even mentioning the theories of how LIFE came to be. Think about that, how did it go from completely inorganic material, to organic material? Ben Stein sure got some interesting answers when he asked that in his movie. He was told by one man who was an avid "Darwinist", very well acclaimed, that life somehow started by piggybacking on the back of crystals.... Really? On the back of crystals? At first I thought that he was joking, but then he kept a straight face. How ridiculous? I think that Lex Luther is more correct about his theory of crystals in "Superman Returns"! What makes me really laugh is that he actually said that on screen. Wow. Another "Darwinist" claimed that we were seeded here by some other civilization who had become much more advanced, through evolution of course, than we are, and then we have evolved from a single cell. Interesting. He claims that intelligent design is absurd, and then goes on to say that we were seeded from a different intelligence... hmmm. Am I the idiot here? Why does it seem to me that he just said that the source of creation was from an intelligent.... non-intelligence?

Anyway, it would be unfair for me to say that these are the only theories out there, because I'm sure there are others. Here's what bothers me, and this is the point of Ben Stein's movie, the theory of evolution is taught as truth and fact. As is the theory of the big bang. The simple fact is that they are not facts, because there's no way to prove them. Nevertheless, these are the only things taught in public schools and colleges. In fact, the supreme court declared it unconstitutional to teach creationism in schools, claiming it to be in violation of the first amendment. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GqNxAzaWBo. They say that teaching creationism is against seperation of church and state. Well where does it say that in the first amendment. "Seperation of church and state" wasn't a term until Thomas Jefferson used it to explain to a baptist clergy that the United States was not to have an official religion, hence the "seperation of church and state." The problem is that the theory of evolution is just as much a "religious belief" as any mainstream judeo-christian belief. Incidentally, every other religion that I'm aware of has their own "creation story." So creationism is really not uncostitutional.

The point made in this film is that we are not free to search out answers to science unless it's in the field of evolution, at least not in the curriculum of public schools. As I went through school, that was definitely the case, so unless things have changed, he's absolutely right. The man who said that life was seeded here from another civilization is Richard Dawkins. He wrote a book called "the God Delusion." In this book, he consistently states that it is illogical, unwise, and foolish to believe in God, or any form of a Supreme Being. He says, as do many evolutionists, that it is liberating to deny the existence of a Supreme Being. It's amazing how similar his words are to those spoken by many in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Over thousands of years, their arguments have not gotten any more complex or sophisticated.

The debate is clearly out of one thing, pride. Scientifically, logically, it is much more likely that there is some governing power that created this universe. People seem to deny this out of pride and that is why we get such absurd theories as proteins and such piggybacking on the backs of crystals, or that we were seeded by an alien life form or civilization. These people try to justify their anger and pride, etc, by coming up with these theories. Unfortunately, these are the theories taught to impressionable children, without the understanding that they are not completely accurate. And even worse, it's been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL to teach anything else.

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions about these topics. Let me know what sort of thoughts you have please. Thanks.

Freedom, Righteousness, and Truth

This past couple of years have been a real eye opener for me. The economy seems to be tanking more and more every day, the government has somehow authorized all these bail out programs that make inflation go through the roof, and we are possibly very close to electing an openly Socialist president. As if that's not enough, we have major border problems, enormous risks to the sanctity of marriage through all of the "gay rights" movements, and so on and so forth. I would be lying if I were to say that I'm not concerned with the way things are heading in the world right now. I write this post with the hopes of perhaps influencing those who are indifferent to these issues to become more involved.

First, let me just say that lately, I have been reading a few books that have influenced me and my opinions. Namely, "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin", "The Constitution of the United States", and "The Communist Manifesto." These books and documents have greatly helped me to understand what is going on right now in the world, but mainly here in America. When I started reading the Communist Manifesto, I was absolutely blown away. We are nearly there. The manifesto consists primarily of ten planks, or points. I will list those here:

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When I look at this, it infuriates me to see how much we have already accepted communism as a valid form of government. I'm not as up to date as I should be, but I can readily think of a few ways in which we, as a nation, have accepted communism. For example, a heavy progressive or graduated income tax. This we already have. Many are not aware, but the average American pays about 33% of their earnings in an income tax. Also, the more money you make, the higher the percentage you pay. How about centralization of credit by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. We have the Federal Reserve, which is NOT a national bank, but it has state capital and unless I am mistaken, also has the monopoly. Not to mention the fact that somewhere along the lines it got the right from... who knows whom, to print money! This is absolutely absurd! Our founding fathers knew of the problems that came with printing money and that's why in the constitution, all currency is to be coined and the value thereof is to be regulated by congress. Congress is also supposed to fix the standard of weights and measures. What exactly is the difference in weights and measures between a $10 and a $100 bill? What about our public schools? I would never say that education is not important, because it absolutely is. But is educating what the public schools accomplish? See, I believe that the majority of Americans tend to create a false dichotomy, or a logical fallacy, that if we don't have public schools, the youth will not receive an education. They limit themselves to only those two conclusions, and possibly a third which is that if we don't do public schools, then only the wealthy will get an education. I don't think that people realize how recently we began the public school system. It started between 70 and 80 years ago, in the times of Franklin D. Roosevelt (go figure). That's not too long when you consider that we've been a nation for around 230 years.
What about all the incredible minds of the 1700's, 1800's and early 1900's? Were they all wealthy people who got a great education while their poor neighbors suffered under stupidity and ignorance? Of course not, look at Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Napoleon Hill, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Charles Shwab, etc. Many of these great minds came out of poverty, long before public schools. They read. They read and they read and they read. And they didn't read loads and loads of trash. They read the classics. They learned great morals and ethical values that sustained them throughout their lives. They became industrious because they received a real education.

From my experiece, public schools just can't give that education. I was indoctrinated during my time in public schools with such things as global warming, evolution, etc. Not that it's a bad thing to be presented with, but these things were taught as fact, and we spent so much time learning them and other pointless subjects that I never really learned the important issues. I was never taught the importance of hard work and directed ambition, at least not in school. I was never taught about frugality or finances. I was taught about the components of what makes a sentence, but never really instructed on how to write well. There are so many more important things to learn that they don't teach in schools because they have to spend so much time covering their government-given curriculum, AKA propaganda.

Anyway, these are only a few of the ways that America has embraced communism. There are of course many more. We are at a time now where we have a socialist running for the highest elected office possible in our country. Interestingly enough, he says that he's not a socialist. That's the same as a dog saying that he's not a canine. It seems to be that many, if not all, of Obama's policies are socialist in nature. Just look at his health care plan and his tax plan. Oh my, did I just call Obama a communist? It would appear so, because his income tax plan falls right in line with the second plank of the Communist Manifesto.

And then there's McCain. He's not as openly communist as Obama, but does he adhere to the constitution? The 16th Amendment was declared ratified by the then Sectretary of State Philander Knox. Look him up on Wikipedia and you'll see that he was shady at best. The problem with the ratification process is that a large portion of the politicians were not present when they voted. So yes, 2/3 of the states ratified it, but that was the majority of the minority. Hopefully that makes sense. So Anyway, McCain wants to do nothing to repeal that unconstitutional amendment. Just in case I sound like an extremist, realize that in the General Conference of the Church before this amendment, the Church leaders told the people that this particular legislation was unconstitutional. Henry D. Moyle in particular was very outspoken on this matter. Ok, so there's taxes, what about his efforts to curb "climate change"? I am sick and tired of politicians using "global warming" and all this other hogwash to incite fear in the people so that they will empower them to "save us from ourselves." Here's my main problem with Mccain, he may not talk about increasing taxes and other directly socialist causes, but he does talk about how government will spearhead our escape from all of these problems. Bigger government means more power for that government. Those who have power desire more of it. An example of this is found in the Mccain-Feingold Act which limits freedom of speach. So even though he may not have all of the direct appearance of a socialist, I'm still concerned about the amount of freedom that we will be giving up under his time in office should he be elected.

My point in bringing this up is that we seem to seperate our political views from our religious views. Are they seperate, or are they one and the same? Is not the main reason that God chose the Savior and his proposal over Lucifer and his proposal is that it ensured us our feedom to choose right from wrong. See 2 Ne. 2:25-27 We a free to act for ouselves, not to be acted upon. What is the reason that God had in forming the Constitution as found in the Doctrine and Covenants? Was it not so that he could have a country which honored the freedoms of its citizens to worship according to their own dictates? It absolutely was. The thing that we continually forget is that there is a constant war over our souls. Satan knows that if he can fully introduce Socialism into our government, that he can take away our God-given rights. Remember that Communism, as taught by Elder McConkie, is the counterfit of the Lord's plan for the Law of Consecration.

This is very effectively taught in a talk by Marion G. Romney entitled "The Celestial Nature of Self-Reliance." He talks about these sea gulls who, for many years, were fed by the shrimp boaters in the area. When the shrimpers and fishers moved, the sea gulls, who hadn't had to find their own food for generations, began to starve. He says that many times, we are like the sea gulls, and when we lose our indepence, and our need to rely on ourselves, we become like the sea gulls. That's one of the problem with accepting government help.

Another of the problems with accepting government help is that the "help" comes from unjust sources. It is through redistribution of wealth. Keep in mind that it is a God-given right to own property. So when the government takes the property of one, to redistribute it to another, it is doing it unconstitutionally. That is not one of the proper purposes for taxation given in the Constitution. In a talk by President Ezra Taft Benson, he refers to this practice as "legalized plunder." See "The proper Role of Geovernment".

OK, here's one more point. Even if you're not religious in any way whatsoever, history has shown that Socialism just doesn't work. Look at it from the point of view of a manager. If you demand that your employees do things, they will perform at a mediocre level at best. When they do things out of their own free will and good nature, they perform at a much higher level of productivity. Communism devastated Russia, and it will again under Putin. It ruined Cuba, how many examples do we need. We should first do things out of moral obligation, but even if we don't have good morals, then we should do things because history has shown that it works and makes sense.

Anyway, like I said before, my purpose in this is hopefully to influence those who are more indifferent to act. I would encourage people to be active in any and all elections, and though I wouldn't say WHO to vote for, I will say that we should always endever to vote for whomever will create more freedom. I myself will be supporting Chuck Baldwin who is running for the Constitution Party. I feel that if he gets into office, he will work to bring about more personal freedom by working to return policies to the way that the Constitution dictates. To those who would say that this is "throwing my vote away," consider this; if you voted for Pres. Bush, what right have you got to complain about the way he's doing things? When you put your little check mark by the name of your candidate, you're saying that you support him. It's similar to saying that you sustain him. I can't do that for Obama or McCain. Even if my candidate of choice doesn't get into office, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I did everything in my power to put him in, thereby attempting to restore the God-given rights of all of American citizens. So please vote this coming election and every election hereafter. And please vote for whoever you feel will be best in office for our freedoms, NOT just the lesser of two evils.