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.