Sunday, May 31, 2009

New on the Sidebar

There are two new polls on my sidebar; so in case you haven't already, don't forget to check them out. Also, I added two new books to my Shelfari: The Hiding Place by Corrie ten Boom and Left Behind: The Kids by Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LaHaye. For some reason that baffles me, Left Behind isn't appearing on the Shelfari on my blog, even though it appears on my account at Computers are an amazing help and advancement to civilization, but sometimes you just can't predict them!

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Blog Award

J. R. Parker, author of the blog The Yodeling Dwarf, has passed on this award to me. Thank you, Jacob!
I would pass it to another blog, but alas, I do not know of many blogs that I could award. I suppose I'm not following as many as he is!

Friday, May 29, 2009

Never Mind: Boredom Problem Solved!

I discovered a web site called "The Cutest Blog on the Block" and found a fun background! Then I changed the font colors of my blog to match. Now I'm stimulated, so I'm content.

Getting Bored

Turns out, my blog has a pretty boring template. I'm getting more tired of it every time I see it. Am I the only one yawning at the sight of a white background, white header, and boring fonts? I've fished through all the blogger template options, however, and none appeal to me. I might even consider switching to, because it seems they have more interesting template options. (That or I'm just falling victim to good advertisement.=])

Anyone have any suggestions? Any bloggers out there who know of a free, easy way to color up your blog?

(PS. I have a new poll on my sidebar. Be sure to submit your answer!)

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Sunday, May 17, 2009

A Hollywood Hoax: The Truth Behind Inherit the Wind

Many people are familiar with the 1960 film Inherit the Wind, based off of the popular play of the same name. Many people are not familiar with the stark difference between the movie (or play) and the actual Scopes Trial of 1925 that it supposedly portrays. Students are still shown this film all across America, in high school science classes, history classes, and other classes, and told that the sights they see are historical reenactments of real events. In reality they are watching a fictional account as far from the facts as it could possibly be!

The Scopes Trial really happened in 1925, in a town called Dayton, Tennessee; in order to test the constitutionality of the Butler Act. The Butler Act made it a misdemeanor in Tennessee to teach the evolution of man; although it did not discourage teaching the evolution of animals, of plants, or of the universe. Anyone who violated the Butler Act was in no danger of going to jail, (only of paying a small fine similar to bootlegging), nor did it have any effect outside of public schools.

However, in the movie Inherit the Wind, we see a young and likable science teacher named Bertram Cates, teaching evolution to his class in Hillsboro, Tennessee. In march the religious “witch hunters” who arrest him and throw him in jail!

Click below to watch the scene from the movie

A trial then unfolds, between the narrow-minded, cold-hearted Christians who want Cates punished for his “sin”, and the just, open-minded evolutionists who believe Cates should have the right to speak what he believes. In the real trial, John Scopes, a substitute biology teacher who never even taught evolution, was only a volunteer in a plan to test the Butler Act, although he was never in any danger of going to jail, and there was never any hate coming from the Christians. Both the prosecutors and defenders got along well, and the Christians of the town certainly did not want Scopes “damned”. The fiery, hate-filled preacher of the movie, Reverend Jeremiah Brown, and his daughter, Cates' fiancĂ©, were both fictional characters. They never existed.

This scene is 100% fictional! There was no Reverend Brown in the Scopes Trial. This character was created to make a bad stereotype of Christians; a stereotype that students are taught all around the country, without being told that it isn't true. Christians, click the video below to see what students in public schools are taught YOU act like!

Inherit the Wind portrays the two classes of characters (those oppo
sed to evolution and those who supported it) with very strong stereotypes. We can see this through the dialog and visual portrayals of the characters. For an example, through dialog we perceive the evolutionists as good-hearted, honest people who believe in truth and science, not in fairy tales. They seem open to new ideas, instead of clinging to one belief and refusing to accept any other. They were all visually portrayed as likable characters, (since they were, in fact, the protagonists of the movie), and Bertram Cates was they typical young, handsome, Hollywood star in love with a beautiful woman. Of course, the romance in Inherit the Wind was entirely fictional.

The real John Scopes

The actor of Bertram Cates, from the movie

As for the Creationists, they were exactly the opposite. Through dialog, we perceive them as pompous, hateful, even hypocritical, bigots. Any good argument the evolutionists might have delivered was hopeless against these stubborn Christians. They seemed willing to ignore any belief, even if backed up by solid science, if it went against their religion. They tended to force their views on other people without listening to alternate ideas. Visually, they were usually ugly and unlikable (for they were, after all, the antagonists of the movie). Sometimes the views of a filmmaker is brought out in his film. In this case, it's so obvious it's barely worth mentioning.

One character in particular from Inherit the Wind is worth a closer study. Matthew Harrison Brady, supposedly based on the prosecuting attorney of the trial, William Jennings Bryan, gives one of the worst portrayals of Christians out of all the characters in the movie. Arrogant, gluttonous, and not very good-looking, he was looked up to like a hero – no, like a god – by the townsfolk of Hillsboro. In comparison, the real William Jennings Bryan was a respectable man, whom John Scopes himself considered “the greatest man produced in the United States since Thomas Jefferson”. Far from being the “god of Dayton”, his welcome to the town was no more extravagant than that of his opponent, Clarence Darrow. Whereas Inherit the Wind presented him as a corny, blustering conservative, he was actually considered one of the (if not the) best orators in the history of America. He ran for president three times under the Democratic ticket, but was too liberal to be elected! In almost every way, the real William Jennings Bryan was entirely opposite from the fictional character, Matthew Harrison Brady, that represents him.

Here's how Inherit the Wind portrays the prosecuting attorney, Matthew Harrison Brady. Keep reading to find out how inaccurate this picture is!

One historian, who was particular not a fan of Bryan, described him in his book The Great Monkey Trial (1968): “In personality he was forceful, energetic, and opinionated but genial, kindly, generous, likable and charming. . . . Although an intellectual absolutist—a black and white thinker—he showed a praiseworthy tolerance towards those who disagreed with him.” (p. 36, L. Sprague de Camp) Contrary to the intolerant bigot in Inherit the Wind who refused to study any view accept his own, Bryan took time to learn both sides of the argument. He understood evolution well enough to publicly debate it in the pages of the New York Times.

Clearly, the makers of this film were being unfair by presenting Christians as something they're not. Yet this is a highly-influential movie, for it is shown to high school students across the country. Students are not told the truth behind Inherit the Wind, and are actually told that every scene is factual! It's no wonder so many young Christians loose their faith during high school. Anyone who sees this movie without knowing the real story behind it would come away with a number of impressions. First, they would think the Monkey Trial (or Scopes Trial) was about an innocent teacher, who was attacked by venomous Christians for teaching the “truth” of evolution. Second, the characters in the movie were real: Matthew Brady was an arrogant hypocrite who knew nothing about evolution, Jeremiah Brown (who, as you remember, was entirely fictional) was a typical Christian pastor who damned evolutionists to Hell, Bertram Cates was a hero who stood for speaking the truth, and Clarence Darrow was a calm and respectable evolutionist who defended Cates' right to speak.

Third, they might see evolution as something that smart people, thinkers, and scientists believe in. Fourth, Christians are enemies of evolution, who hate anyone that believes in it, and are unwilling to accept knowledge or science where it conflicts with their religion. And finally, Christianity is a flawed, outdated, man-made bunch of fairy tales, and only ignorant or foolish people follow it.

Yes, this is what students are fed in public school. And no one is telling them that none of it is true.

Learn more about the facts of the Scopes Trial versus the fiction of Inherit the Wind at

Monday, May 11, 2009

Big Bang: Fact or Fiction?

There are two main theories explaining how our universe came to be. One says, “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.” The other says, “Once upon a time, nothingness packed together and exploded, creating the universe.” Which is true, and which is false? Let us examine both theories and make an educated conclusion as to the origin of the universe.

First, the Big Bang Theory, widely excepted by evolutionists, claims that the entire universe came out of nothing. That's right. Absolutely nothing. This nothingness decided to squeeze together into a tiny dot, as small as a period at the end of a sentence. Pressure built up so high in this little spot that the nothingness exploded! It zoomed outward through frictionless space, expanding at an enormous speed. As it rushed outward, it created protons, neutrons, and electrons. These eventually formed into atomic structures and made hydrogen and helium. As these atomic structures circled each other, they formed gas clouds, which slowly pulled together into stars, and all the other heavenly bodies.

What evidence is there for the Big Bang Theory? The main source of “proof” that evolutionists point to is an expanding universe. Science has shown that our universe is rapidly growing, which seems to fit in with the idea that everything exploded from one point, and is still exploding! How do we know that the universe is expanding? It all has to do with redshift.

Redshift is something scientists use to measure light from celestial bodies. A star, for an example, might give off blueshift light or redshift light. Simply put, blueshift means the object is moving toward the viewer; redshift means it's moving away. By measuring redshift, scientists have concluded that objects in space are moving away from us; staggeringly fast! According to the Hubble Law: the greater the distance, the greater the redshift. In other words, the further a galaxy (or other object) is from earth, the faster it is moving from us! But does an expanding universe really prove the Big Bang Theory? We'll return to that thought in a moment.

Another thing evolutionists use to support the Big Bang is the distant starlight problem. There are many stars billions of light years away from us, meaning it would take billions of years for their light to reach us. Yet we can see them on earth, so obviously their light has reached us already. Evolutionists say this proves our universe is very old. How else would the starlight get to us, unless it had been traveling for billions of years? Are the Evolutionists right? Keep reading.

Creationists reveal uncountable problems with the Big Bang Theory. To list a few, nothingness cannot squeeze together. This is common sense. Does nothingness have density, mass, or volume? Of course not! It's nothing! So how does it pack into a little spot? And how does it explode? You can try this yourself. Grab a handful of nothing, squeeze it together real tightly, and tell me if it explodes and creates a universe. I highly doubt it will.

Speaking of explosions, what caused the explosion? There was no ignition. There were no matches, no flame. It couldn't have been a chemical explosion, for there were no chemicals. There was just nothing, remember. There couldn't have been a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!

Also, you can't expand nothingness, nor can nothingness produce heat. The Big Bang Theory says that the heat caused by the explosion was what created protons, neutrons, and electrons. But does nothingness produce heat? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Let's just say the protons, neutrons and electrons did magically come into existence, and continued rushing outward through frictionless space. But if there was no friction, how would the particles slow down and begin circling each other, turning into atomic structures? Newton's first law of motion states, in his words, “An object in motion tends to remain in motion at the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an external force.” You couldn't even change the direction of one particle. They would continue to race on for eternity, never changing their speed or direction.

Now, we'll assume that the particles managed the defy the first law of motion and somehow turned into atomic structures, which created the gases hydrogen and helium. The next step in the Big Bang timetable would be for these gases to clump together into gas clouds, and for these gas clouds to form stars. However, gases always push away from each other; either on earth or in space. They never push together. Even if they did push together, gas clouds in space expand, they do not contract; so they could never create stars.

These facts are not only known by creationists. Two evolutionary scientists, Harwit and Novotny, discovered that gas in outer space would never push together into stars. Harwit found that in order for gas, or any type of particle, to clump into one-hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius, it would 3 billion years! As that's only with the maximum sticking ability and most favorable conditions. At more likely rates, it would take 20 billion years for one grain of matter to clump together. Evolutionists believe our universe is only 15 billion years old, 20 billion at the absolute most. There's no way all the heavenly bodies could form in that amount of time.

Novotny wrote about the problem of “gaseous dispersion” in a book published by Oxford University, in which he explained that gas in a vacuum expands, it does not contract. It can not form into stars, planets, etc.

Another blow for the Big Bang Theory is the Law of Entropy, which says that anything organized becomes disorganized over time. Our universe is an extremely orderly universe. Did you know that if our planet received just 1% less energy from the sun, it'd be too cold for life, and if we received just 1% more energy, it'd be too warm for life? We could not exist on earth without laws precisely the way they are, and our galaxy and beyond is governed by order and perfect design. How could these laws be established with a Big Bang? How could the universe start with chaos (a great explosion) and end in order and precise laws? This completely defies the Law of Entropy!

However, Evolutionists would point to the fact that our universe is expanding. As we asked earlier, does that prove the Big Bang? Remember that the Hubble Law states that the greater the distance of a celestial body, the greater the redshift (or the faster it's moving away from us). However, the astronomer Halton Arp discovered that the Hubble Law was wrong. He found galaxies in outer space that were connected by bridges of matter, but each having different redshifts! According to the Hubble Law, this would mean that the two galaxies should be greatly far away from each other; but they couldn't be, because they were literally connected to each other!

If the Hubble Law is wrong, than what is redshift? How could two galaxies be connected and yet have different redshift? We will return to this mystery in a moment, but before we do, let us examine the second theory on the origin of our universe: the Creation Model.

Creationists believe that everything – our planet, our galaxy, and the entire universe – was created by God. Over a six-day period, He spoke the world into existence; first light, then the sky, then the land and sea, then the plants, then the stars and heavenly bodies, then the animals, and finally mankind. According to the account in Genesis, it seems that God made most of His creation in mature form. Instead of infant humans, He made a man and woman that probably appeared thirty years old; even if they were less than a day old! He also made trees that looked like they had been growing for years; even if they were recently created. To answer the distant starlight problem, he probably did the same with stars; He caused their light to already be twinkling in our atmosphere at the moment He conceived them, as if they had been doing so for billions of years. But they hadn't been.

In fact, there is great evidence for a young universe. One example is the moon. Our moon is very slowly moving away from us. This isn't much of a problem, for it won't get anywhere in a long time; but it is a problem for people who believe in an old universe. They believe our earth is many billions of years old, but only one billion years ago the moon would have been touching us! Obviously our world must be a lot younger!

This brings us to redshift. How could two connected galaxies have different redshifts? Dr. John Hartnett, Ph.D., for Answers in Genesis, proposed a theory to answer this question: redshift does not mean that an object is expanding away from us! Instead, God made some galaxies at the beginning of history, and each galaxy created more galaxies, which created more galaxies; and they continue to expand further and further like fireworks. Dr. Hartnett's theory concludes that matter is not expanding from one point (as a result of the Big Bang) but from many parent galaxies. Thus, redshifts do not mean that an object is moving away from earth, but from its parent galaxy.

Clearly, there is more scientific evidence for the Creationist Model, and more evidence against the Big Bang. But it is up to you to decide what you will believe in. What will you choose?

Sources Consulted

Hubble, Bubble: Big Bang in Trouble, (Dr. John Hartnett, Ph.D.), Answers in Genesis

Creation and Cosmology, (Dr. Danny Faulkner, Ph.D.), Answers in Genesis

Creation Astronomy, (Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D.), Answers in Genesis

Richards, Lawrence O., It Couldn't Just Happen, Nashville, TN: Tommy Nelson, Inc., 1989

Ferrell, Vance, The Evolution Handbook, Altamont, TN: Evolution Facts, Inc., 2005

Steele, DeWitt, and Gregory Parker, Science of the Physical Creation, Pensacola, Florida: A Beka Book, 1996

Friday, May 8, 2009

Coming Soon...

Coming soon to my blog: two posts entitled "Big Bang: Fact or Fiction?" and "A Hollywood Hoax: The Truth Behind Inherit the Wind". I'll post them as soon as they're ready. Stay tuned!