Paul — a different apostle?

Recently I have seen advertisements on the TV for this new film called ‘Paul’. Paul is this alien that two guys have come across and the film is about their adventures. This is just one of many films that is on the ET/Alien bandwagon. Not only are there movies about this, but there are songs by pop divas about having sex with aliens, kissing Judas and the list goes on. I have blogged about that before. In fact, I have said quite a bit about this topic and how I see our culture becoming more and more mystic and pagan.

The reason I am blogging about this today is because I have found this site that reviews the movie ‘Paul’ and the review says, surprise surprise… that it’s typically an anti-Christian film. This review can be found HERE, but firstly I want to point out that I don’t agree with everything the reviewer says… just let me make that clear. But here’s the thing, I was absolutely floored that at the end of the movie this happens…

And more subversive… Paul has healing powers. First he heals fundamentalist Ruth’s bad eye winning her to atheism. In one scene he resurrects a dead bird and then promptly eats it quipping, “I’m not going to eat a deadbird am I?” Yes Paul can resurrect the dead. Of course, these powers are attributed to the magical properties of evolution. But as the movie progresses we learn that in healing Paul takes on the wounds of the subject. Paul reveals that it is too dangerous to bring a human back to life. That is, until near the end of the film when Simon Pegg’s character is blasted by Ruth’s violent shotgun toting Father named Moses. Paul himself almost dies in absorbing the deadly wound and saves the day. Sound familiar?

As the evolutionary theory — neo-Darwinism struggles because of the maxim of intelligent source (even evolutionary pundits such as Richard Dawkins has grappled with the idea of Alien creators. But of course Dawkins still says that these creator aliens had to evolve as Darwin’s evolutionary theory states. ) the how did we get here becomes a bigger problem. The way I see it is that the time is right for Satan and his lies. Sad but true. All I can say is Marantha, Come quick my Lord Jesus!

At the bottom of this post are a few links that deals with intelligent design. Let me say that these links are NOT literal creationist links but rather agnostic ID advocates. Richard Dawkins and others like him are being challenged not only by literal creationists but by scientists who see that…

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.”

The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.



4 thoughts on “Paul — a different apostle?

  1. Hello Vee,

    You write:
    ” In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.

    This is not true, it is a lie that is pushed by the Answers in Genesis people who are behind and finance the CSC.

    Evolution as described by Darwin has been doing nothing but getting stronger for the last 152 years. It is religion that has fallen prey to science as we learn more and more about the universe and the earth…religion is being disproved.


    • Hiya Word of you 😀

      AiG finance CSC? hmmmm. CSC and AiG are not on the same page biblically. CSC do not hold to the literal biblical interpretation of the Genesis account…

      See here:

      Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

      Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.
      Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

      The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s “refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God” and noted that “philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group.” Indeed, according to AIG, “many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation….” (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing “the Biblical method,” concluding that “Design is not enough!” (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.

      For AiG to finance CSC makes no sense because AiG believe that to discredit the genesis creation account would be extremely detrimental to believing in other miracles such as the resurrection which is pivotal for the salvation for those dead in sin. This would be akin to AiG shooting themselves in the foot and would be very counter productive for their ministry.


  2. Hello again Vee, thank you for your kind reply.

    The website link above will take you to a Jewish site that reprinted a story from the Los Angeles Times by Henry Weinstein in the December 21, 2005 edition.

    I will quote some pertinent parts from it, if you don’t mind.

    “A federal judge, saying “intelligent design” is “an interesting theological argument, but…not science,” ruled Tuesday that a school board violated the (US) constitution by compelling biology teachers to present the concept as an alternative to evolution.”

    “The ruling came after U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III heard 21 days of testimony in a closely watched trial that pitted a group of parents against the school board in the town of Dover, Pennsylvania”(USA)

    “In October 2004, the board had required school officials to read a statement to ninth-graders declaring that Charles Darwin’s ideas on evolution were “a theory…not a fact,” and that gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. “Intelligent design is an explanation on the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view,” the statement said.”

    (Judge) “Jones, a church-going conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by President Bush in 2002, said that the statement was clearly designed to insert religious teachings into the classroom. He used much of his 139 page ruling to dissect arguments made for intelligent designed.”

    “Remarks by (school) board members that they had secular purposes in mind—to improve science teaching and to foster an open debate—were a “sham” and a pretext for the boards real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom,” he wrote.”

    “The “overwhelming evidence” has established that intelligent design” is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” Jones wrote.

    “The (US) Supreme Court in 1987 barred the teaching in public schools of what backers called creation science. The concept of intelligent design emerged after that ruling, Jones noted in his ruling.”

    My additions in parenthesis are for clarification.

    It is well known in the US skeptical community that intelligent design is a DIRECT “religious” offshoot of creationism. In fact a book designed to teach ID in schools was found (In Judge Jones courtroom) to be a retread of an early creationist textbook. Judge Jones berated the people on the ID side for the lies and mistruths they dragged into his courtroom.

    There are no “real” schools, colleges, or universities in America that teach intelligent design. All that have anything related to ID are religious creationist foundations. Even well known mainline schools that are backed by mainline religious denominations here do not have an intelligent design department or professors teaching the subject. Two examples: Brigham Young University in Utah is funded by the Mormons…they don’t teach ID. Notre Dame, a Catholic funded school does not teach ID…nor does ANY other school in the US.

    So far ID has not produced any science. They have no published peer reviewed science journal articles to their credit…this after over 20 years.

    There are probably many hundreds if not thousands of religious foundations and organizations actively working in the US with a big overwhelming mission…remove evolution from schools and replace secular laws and practices with religious ones. Humanity had this once…in Europe…it was called The Dark Ages.


Comments are closed.