aldenswan.com

I went to the 7:10 showing of Expelled  last evening. I have to admit, I was a bit afraid to see it. You see, I am used to seeing things produced by Christians that are just embarrasing.  I was kind of afraid that the movie would go way over the top, make outrageous claims, and lose any credibility that they may have had.  The events of the last couple of weeks, with PZ’s black-listing and various claims of copyright infringement, didn’t help. So, I was prepared to write a review dealing with the good, the bad, and the just plain ugly.  I am surprised, then, to not have to do that.  Expelled is a pretty decent documentary.  In fact, it’s fairly brilliant.

Now, I know I’m going to be called delusional (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) for that last statement, but I’m just being honest. I thought they did a darn good job putting the film together, and that they acheived their goal.  It was pretty fast-moving, coherant, and at times humorous. I thought the editing was quite good. The use of old b&w film clips to make points was well-done.

However, it wasn’t perfect. I thought the opening b&w sequence really didn’t fit the rest of the movie. Certainly they continued to use b&w throughout, but it was a quite dark and depressing way to start the film, and really didn’t have the same feel as the movie itself.  Two things that could have been left out, in my opinion, are the two clips where copyright claims are being raised: The CGI bit on the inner working of the cell is cool, certainly, but really didn’t add to the movie, and actually seemed a bit out of place. The same is true, in my opinion, of the short Imagine bit. It wasn’t necessary, and if anything was distracting.  

Before I say any more about Expelled, let me offer a little autobiographical information. While I have always enjoyed science, until the last year or two I have not paid much attention to the whole Darwinism/ID debate. I have seen a few TV documentaries over the years, none of which were favorable at all to any non-Darwinian position, but other than that, I paid little attention. I enjoy astronomy, physics (I especially enjoy quantum theory) and cosmology, but have little interest in biology (other than going to the zoo) and don’t like chemistry at all.

It was only after I reconnected with my friend Mike that I started catching up on the Darwinism thing. I started reading a number of blogs and articles on various sides of the issues, finding that not all evolutionists agreed on all issues, and neither did the non-Darwinists (I’m using the terms generically). Since then I have formed my own opinions on a number of issues, and am still undecided on many. I accept that some evolution happens, as evolution is loosely defined. I don’t - at the moment - believe in common descent.  I am, overall, something of a skeptic, and that goes for religious issues as well as in science or any other topic. I always question the status quo, whatever it is. So, I have read all sides with a skeptical eye, discounting many on both sides of the issues.

What I found as I watched Expelled was that the film fairly represented the positions of those interviewed; in fact, most information came from the individuals themselves rather than from Ben Stein, who served to put the information into context.  I also thought that the overall point of the film, that there is a Darwinist establishment who is more concerned with self-protection than allowing any real questioning of the issues, reflected what I have seen in my own reading. 

The film won’t change the minds of any who are already entrenched in their positions. It doesn’t give any pat answers. What it does is expose issues that deserve to be brought to light. For those who are not already entrenched in their positions, it may prompt them to do further study, and will of course let them make up their own mind.

I thought Will Provine expressed best what I would expect from a true scientist, that people should be allowed to examine all of the evidence, and decide for themselves what to make of it, whether it be some form of ID, or as in Provine’s case, a purely materialistic (and fatalistic) viewpoint.  Eugenie Scott and PZ Myers were themselves; no real surprises there. Dawkins provided some comic relief, with his rambling thoughts about ID and aliens; pretty much the whole audience broke into laughter during that segment.

One thing that surprised me what that David Berlinski was not identified as an agnostic, which I think would have given his opinions a bit more punch, seeing as he is perhaps the only one interviewed who is not committed to either deism or atheism.

I also thought the segment dealing with the Darwin - Nazi connection was fairly well done. The interview with Uta George, the director of the Hadamar Gas Chamber Memorial, was absolutely shocking; I found her complete detachment to the horrors of eugenics - and her refusal to say anything negative about it - horrifying. My son thought she was only representing the Nazi position, but to me it seemed that she really bought into it. And, by the way, she emphasized several times that those in charge of the eugenics programs were influenced by Darwinism.

I saw the film tonite with my oldest son and his girlfriend (who chose to see Expelled rather than the new Jackie Chan movie). He commented that it seemed to him that the first part of the movie focused on how ID is not tied to religion, but the 2nd part seemed to try to tie the issues to religion. My other son wants to see it, but was sick, so I’ll probably watch it again with him in a couple of days and will comment further on this and any other new thoughts.

It’s on my header, “really good coffee.”  The small print, of course, does say that I don’t provide the coffee.  The least I could do, however, is to give you some ideas about how to get some really good coffee on your own, so you could fully enjoy my blog experience.

The first suggestion, of course, is that you can go to Starbucks. I don’t care that they’re the big corporate thing, I just prefer Starbucks to any other coffee I’ve had; I drink Cafe Estima, which besides tasting great, is also a Fair Trade coffee. So, it makes me feel good, too.  In my opinion, Starbucks make the smoothest, most consistant and least bitter espresso that I’ve had.  And, I’ve had a lot of espresso over the years. (I will say, though, that there’s a little shop near me that makes a better mocha, but that’s more about the chocolate…)

However, if you want really, really, good coffee at home, here’s a couple of alternative coffee makers that you really should check out.

The first is the Toddy cold brew system.  I had heard about it from a friend late last year, and as it turned out, the non-Starbucks coffee shop that my son works for uses Toddy coffee for their cold coffee drinks. Lo and behold, I got one for Christmas (thanks in part to my Amazon wish-list).  The Toddy system is pretty simple, actually, it’s a white plastic container with a drain at the bottom, and a glass jar.  You put this really unique felt-like filter in the bottom of the plastic container, and put in a pound of coffee and 9 cups of cold water. Then, you let it soak for about 12 hours, after which you pull the little plug out of the drain and let it filter through into the glass jar. 

What you end up with is approximately 6 cups concentrated coffee that you store in your fridge. When you want a cup, you simply mix one part concentrate to 3 parts hot water.  The result is by far the smoothest, richest coffee I’ve ever tasted, with about 2/3 less acid that normally brewed coffee. It’s truly almost like a different drink (I decided to still drink regular coffee in the morning, as I need that “edge”).  It’s great hot, and even better cold.

The real downside to the Toddy (and there is a real downside) is that they misrepresent (in my opinion) the efficiency of the system.  If you drink 16 oz cups, and mix it per the dirctions, that means you are using 4 ounces of concentrate for every cup; that’s 16 wonderful cups of coffee from one pound of coffee grounds.  Considering I drink regular brew in the A.M., and drink cold-brewed decaf in the afternoon and evening, I barely make it through a week per pound. As I only buy Starbucks beans (seriously, I don’t even own stock), that means about 65 cents per cup; not bad compared to alot of other things, including coffee out (even at 7-11), but way more than you’re used to paying for home-brewed coffee.  I have found, however, that I don’t need quite as much concentrate as they say, so I probably get 20 good cups per pound.

However, it’s also the easiest cup of coffee I’ve ever made, and that’s worth a lot, too.

Now, for my 2nd recommendation.  A few weeks ago, EricW commented on my blog and told me about the Aerobie AeroPress.  I read up on it, and was so impressed that I bought one as a birthday gift for my brother-in-law (timing is everything).  I’ve had a few cups of his AeroPressed coffee, and I have to say that it’s quite good as well. It’s very smooth and non-acidy, better by far than a typical drip or even a French Press.

The AeroPress is kind of a manual espresso machine, making from 1-2 mugs at a time, depending on how strong you want it.  Full strength, it makes 4 shots of espresso in under a minute.  It’s essentially a plastic tube with a filter on the bottom (it uses paper filters) and a plastic plunger. You put the grounds and hot water in the tube, stir it for a few seconds, then slowly push the plunger to the bottom. The air pressure forces the water through the grounds, and that’s it.  Again, it’s essentially a hand-powered espresso machine. 

And, with the Aeropress, there’s no downside that I can see. The grounds just push out (it creates a neat little hockey-puck of packed grounds) so clean-up is way easier than a French press, and it uses less coffee per cup than a French press.

So, carpe caffeum.  (I think I’ve lived up to my header, now.)

The final chapter in Webber’s The Divine Embrace is entitled Life Together, which is, of course, where all this ends, in church. One of my repeated critiques of a contemporary church experience is that it is essentially existential, focusing on the self. Webber agrees, saying that the problem is that spirituality itself is taught as generating from the self: “It is a view that seems to permeate the evangelical culture.”

Webber proposes that when spirituality is situated in God’s embrace, church and worship then reveals that to us. We are no longer cheerleaders (my term) that have to conjur up some sense of worship and spirituality, but are rather participants who have God revealed to us as we respond to his embrace. 

Webber criticizes the modern business model of the church, which has created, as you’d expect, a consumerist mentality. This has followed a natural progression, with churches focusing on what the unchurched want, and making the church culturally relevant. As a result, many churches merely reflect not only the look, but the “narrative of culture.” Churches offer programs to meet the needs and desires of the congregation, as opposed to nurturing new converts and discipling them.

This chapter also discusses what Webber calls the crisis of worship. As I have mentioned before, contemporary worship sees God as the object God who needs to be worshipped by us, which originates worship in the self. Webber believes that a Biblical and historical view of worship is that “worship does God’s story.” Worshp proclaims God and what he is doing, and in worship we enact the story. A worship that is nourishing focuses on historical events (not emotions), uses Biblical language, and includes prayer that discloses and echoes God’s story.

Since I’ve started reading this book, I have paid even closer attention to what kind of worship happens in the churches I attend, and I think Webber is correct. The further and further we have “progressed” into evengelicalism, our worship songs have become more and more meaningless, offering little if anything of the truth of the Gospel. Even in my own Vineyard culture, the contemporary worship songs have become less and less doctrinal. No longer is the Trinity mentioned (in fact, often the Persons are confused). In fact, it’s rare to find Biblical language used that hasn’t been edited and lost among less meaningful phrases.

What now?  As I’ve probably mentioned in the past, I really don’t have a great deal of hope that the Evangelical church will stop the nonsense and realign itself with a Biblical concept of spirituality. I also don’t have hope for the emerging church, which to me is simply modernism will the lid off.  That’s not to say I haven’t lost  faith in God’s church, or his ability to pull it together.

As for what I do, I’m not sure. Next Sunday is Easter, and at the moment, I’m looking for a good church that remembers what it’s like to celebrate a resurrection. Then, I’ll go to our church with my family.