Wednesday, April 30, 2008

I have been accused of being a fake Christian!

Yep, it happened, as well as one person calling me deluded and that I still had a lot to learn I was called afake Christian by a young earth creationist.

I was commenting on Evolved Rationalist's post on Expelled. Well there is a young earth creationist christian there name Creationist (creative name huh!). Well he said something about "Darwinism" leading to Nazism and Eugenics and I replied;

I feel outnumbered as a theistic evolutionist. Everyone on this board seems to
be either a creationist or atheistic evolutionist.and Creationist, using your
logic the KKK would all be theistic evolutionists being that they are pretty
close to being nazis (they hate blacks, Jews, Catholics, and pretty much anyone
who is different from them), But no; they are most likely biblical literalists
like you (I am not equating biblical literalism with racism simply saying the
fact that they are racists or nazis is irrelevent).

Now there was another Christian besides him and myself on the board, Christislord12 who said;

You are not a true Christian if you do not trust G-d enough to believe what
He says about creation. How could you call G-d a liar just because of what
scientists say? You are in danger of hellfire.

After this I made my offical proclamation that he was fire-breathin' baptist. I replied;

Um Christislord12,Lets see how your claim holds up
--I believe in God
--I believe the bible is true
--I believe in the virgin birth and literal ressurection of Christ
--I believe in the trinity--
I accept averything in the nicene creed--
I believe Jesus is God in the flesh.
--I believe God created the universe
So how am I not a true Christian I agree with 95% of what you say I simply
think God used evolution and that the scientific evidence for it is very
convincing, you on the other hand are simply being subborn; Dogma, not faith
impedes science

Well I think that pretty much settles it, I must once again stress the fact that I am a Christian, well you remember what happened to Jesus

Of course his friend, Creationist chimed in (twice);

There are not only atheist Darwinists here, but also fake Christians who
are actually Darwinists but pretend to be Christians to mislead others. They
will burn in hell with the rest of the atheist Darwinists and the arrogant blog
author who thinks that she has the right to make fun of Christians.


Christislord12, yes I agree with you.Shalini Sehkar EXPOSED!!

Created Rationalist also EXPOSED as a fake!!!!!

All are being EXPOSED!!

Oh well...I know what Christ commands me to to do about those people (although they probably won't appreciate me putting them in that category)

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Expelled, a review from theistic evolutionist's perspective

And so I begin? Where I probably should, at the beginning with (an introduction); it all started on Sunday when during service at my church, the pastor came up and said someone was going to be speaking on the movie "Expelled; No intelligence allowed!" Now I have talked about it in the past, although mostly I talked about its producer Ben Stein. Well the person said it was going to be at a nearby theater and that the church was invited.

This caused my youth-pastor to cancel leadership (when the youth group gets together each Tuesday to plan whats going to happen at the high school and to talk about one and others walk in the faith) and instead we were going to see the movie. Well I got there a half hour before it started, most of the people there were from my church or the school which is connected to the church. Well after waiting half an hour the video started. The opening seen showed pictures of Nazi Germany, the Berlin wall, etc. Then it opened onto a stage where Ben Stein came out to speak.

At first I was afraid this would ruin the entire experience. But he started talking about freedom, and how our nation is built on freedom, and how without freedom, we wouldn't be America. I agree to all these statements, moving forward.

He then starts talking about a movement in the scientific community to suppress Intelligent Design (whether or not this is true will be decided soon). He talks of people who had their lives ruined and were fired from their jobs simply because they mentioned the word Intelligent Design (well, we'll see...)

He starts with Richard Sternberg, who worked at the Smithsonian institute until about two years ago. Then he published an article by Stephen Meyers which caused a bit of trouble. He claims that he was unjustly fired and his career ruined. Now if this is true then I am appalled. Nonetheless we must look at both sides, other reliable sources say otherwise, here is an excerpt from an article on Expelled Exposed;

"Sternberg did not lose his office or his access to collections, he did not lose
his job, he was not “fired” from the (unpaid) editorship of the journal (he had
resigned six months before the publication of the Meyer article), and from the
e-mails in the appendix to the Souder report, it appears that his colleagues
were civil in their communications with him. The Smithsonian renewed his
Research Collaborator status for another three years in 2006. It seems, then,
that the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things
about him in private email to one another. Since the same can be said of almost
every person, it’s hard to see how this could be construed as “life ruining”.
There is no evidence of any material harm done to Sternberg as a result of the
publication of the Meyer article. And any damage done to his reputation would
seem to have been self-inflicted.

This does not sound like his life was being ruined, or that he was immediately fired from his job. Also there is another problem, he claims it was peer-reviewed, and that's true-well...sort of...

"The first question asked by BSW members was “how did this paper ever get
published?” According to the Council of the Biological Society of
, Sternberg failed to follow proper procedure in publishing the
paper: “Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without
review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The
Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and
the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of
the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant
departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has
been known throughout its 122-year history.” The BSW withdrew the paper in
embarrassment, emphasizing that the paper was substandard science. It commented
that the society endorsed “a resolution on ID published by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (, which
observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a
testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the
Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.”"

His article contrary to his claim did not meet the peer-review requirements, he didn't even send a copy of it to those more qualified them him to review it, an excerpt from science blogger Ed Brayton;

"Systematics (the study of taxonomy) is the subject of the PBSW and it is the
subject of Sternberg’s expertise, but it is not the subject of Meyer’s paper.
The primary subject of the paper is the Cambrian explosion and, ostensibly,
bioinformatics as it pertains to the origin of the higher phyla. This is not the
focus of Sternberg’s research, nor does it have much of anything to do with
systematics other than an obligatory discussion of how many phyla and sub-phyla
originated during the Cambrian. The most appropriate reviewers, then, would be
paleontologists. Among the associate editors at the time (and still today) was
Gale Bishop, an expert in invertebrate paleontology. There were three other
specialists on invertebrates among the associate editors as well, including
current PBSW editor Stephen Gardiner, Christopher Boyko and Janet Reid, all
specialists in invertebrate zoology (the Cambrian fauna was almost entirely made
up of invertebrates). Yet Sternberg felt no need to let any of those people, all
more qualified than him on the subject, even look at the paper, or even make
them aware of its existence. He may not have been under any formal obligation to
send the article to someone with a specialty in Cambrian paleontology, but that
is both the professional and the ethical thing to do."

Whether by chance or by design (no pun intended) Richard Sternberg didn't exactly deserve the grace he was in fact given, the science he promoted wasn't good science. He did not make a good case for Intelligent Design unfortunately. I feel like saying, "Keep trying IDers, your getting there, but your not accepted as a legitimate scientific movement yet."

During this time I wouldn't say everything was peaceful; as I watched it is sure was convincing, my old young earth creationist side kicked in, the amount of creationism entering my brain reached critical mass and my brain cells began to self-destruct one by one. 25% through the video I felt really sorry for what I had said about Ben Stein earlier, I began to think to myself "You are a traitor! You have sold out to the enemy! If you lived in medieval times you would be drawn and quartered!" I had nothing but sympathy for those who were expelled, non-ID scientists were made to look like such dogmatic anti-religious fools that I wanted to sock them in the nose saying "Has your brain been replaced by a very small califlower!?"

Either way it is up to you decide whether or not I was thinking clearly.

The next person was Caroline Crocker who said that after she after mentioned Intelligent Design she was fired and blacklisted. Now if this is true then may those who did this be beaten by a severely hormonally pregnant woman with a volcanic temper and a very skilled hand at pitchforking. But we must see the other side, she claims that she was immediately fired from her job and I would like nothing better then to believe her, but professional sources say otherwise;

"Crocker’s position at George Mason University (GMU) was a non-tenure track
contract position in which the employee teaches on a course-by-course basis for
a set length of time, with no guarantee of a renewal. Universities commonly use
such “contingent faculty”, and, while not being brought back for another term
may be the result of inadequate performance, it most commonly is the result of
staffing needs: whether or not an individual’s expertise is needed at a
particular time, or whether regular faculty can handle the load for the
particular semester. Tenured and tenure track faculty make up only 31.9% of
university teaching jobs in the United States
, so Crocker’s situation was
not unusual. In fact, overlapping with her contract at GMU, she held another contract position to teach at Northern Virginia Community
Despite claims of being fired, Crocker was allowed to continue
teaching and complete her GMU contract after the Department became aware of her
ID instruction through student complaints. She was instructed to not teach about
intelligent design and creation science, which was not part of the curriculum of
the courses she had been hired to teach. Academic freedom does not mean the
freedom to teach about anything you want, regardless of the expected content of
your courses. And, far from having her academic career “come to an abrupt end”,
after leaving GMU, Crocker taught at NVCC, and additionally acquired in 2006 a
postdoctoral position at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, MD,
working on T-cell signal transduction – an actual scientific investigation –
suggesting that her reputation as a scientist was unaffected by the controversy
over intelligent design."

It seems that she either severely misinterpreted it or well...either way, this claim that she was fired for even mentioning her job is also inaccurate. In fact she was allowed to continue teaching Intelligent Design even though she was using faulty, discredited creationist arguments which frankly I would not expect from a person like her;

"In the above-mentioned article in the Washington Post, Crocker is described teaching her students a
laundry list of discredited Creationist arguments. In a
video on the Coral Ridge Ministries site
, several of Crocker’s slides are
shown. Though it’s not known whether Crocker used the same slides while teaching
at George Mason, the Washington Post article provides evidence that they were
part of her Northern Virginia Community College lectures. Her use of these
slides suggests that Crocker shows either a shocking ignorance of evolutionary
science, or a rather shameless willingness to distort the evidence"

The exact arguments she used were arguments, many of which not even Answers in Genesis uses anymore! This is an Intelligent Design Advocate who is not supposed to be a creationist, the arguments she used are;
--the Archaeopterix was a fraud
--Eohippis (the proposed evolutionary ancestor of horse) is really a modern day Hirax (they are obviously two completely different animals).
--she misquoted Stephen J. Gould on speciation
--She said the peppered moth experiment was hoax.

All of these are false discredited creationist claims, I am ashamed at Professor Crocker's intellectual behavior.

He next mentions Robert Marks III, a tenured professor who had his research website shut down for supporting Intelligent Design, although this isn't actually the case;

"Robert Marks’s “Evolutionary Informatics Laboratory” website – touting
intelligent design – was originally hosted on a Baylor University server.
Concerned that the material on the website misleadingly suggested a connection
between the intelligent design material and Baylor, administrators temporarily
shut the website down while discussing the issue with Marks and his lawyer.
Baylor was willing to continue hosting the website subject to a number of
conditions (including the inclusion of a disclaimer and the removal of the
misleading term “laboratory”), but Marks and Baylor were unable to come to
terms. The site is currently hosted by a third-party provider."

it was not nearly as Nazi-like as Expelled portrays it;

"Given this history, it was consistent for Baylor to be sensitive to attempts to
portray it as sponsoring intelligent design: the science departments have been
reluctant to be associated with a field they consider unscientific, and the
issue has been a source of strife at Baylor for several years. In any event, the
worst that happened to Professor Marks was that he had to remove his web site
from Baylor’s webserver. In no other way was his free speech impinged, nor have
his work conditions changed in any way: he remains a Distinguished Professor of
Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor, holding a full professorship in
the School of Engineering and Computer Science. He continues to teach his
courses and conduct research. Where is the harm?"

Ben Stein also interviews Guillermo Gonzalez, Gulliermo also says it was because of his association with Intelligent Design. However it was in fact associated more with his declining publishing and research record as well as the lack of graduate students he had and those he had mentored;

"Gonzalez’s publication output dropped steadily during his time at ISU. The work
he did publish was based on re-evaluations of data he had previously collected
or analyses of other people’s data.
assessment by the Chronicle of Higher Education
(subscription required)
found that:
…a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez’s case raises some questions about
his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise.

Under normal circumstances, Mr. Gonzalez’s publication record would be
stellar and would warrant his earning tenure at most universities, according to
Mr. Hirsch [a scholar who analyzed the publication record]. But Mr. Gonzalez
completed the best scholarship, as judged by his peers, while doing postdoctoral
work at the University of Texas at Austin and at the University of Washington,
where he received his Ph.D. His record has trailed off since then.
“It looks
like it slowed down considerably,” said Mr. Hirsch…. “It’s not clear that he
started new things, or anything on his own, in the period he was an assistant
professor at Iowa State.”
That pattern may have hurt his case. “Tenure review
only deals with his work since he came to Iowa State,” said John McCarroll, a
spokesman for the university.
When considering a tenure case, faculty
committees try to anticipate what kind of work a professor will accomplish in
the future. “The only reason the previous record is relevant is the extent to
which it can predict future performance,” said Mr. Hirsch. “Generally, it’s a
good indication, but in some cases it’s not.”
David L. Lambert, director of
the McDonald Observatory at Texas, supervised Mr. Gonzalez during his
postdoctoral fellowship there in the early to mid-1990s. … [H]e is not aware of
any important new work by Mr. Gonzalez since he arrived at Iowa State, such as
branching off into different directions of research. “I don’t know what else he
has done,” Mr. Lambert said. …
Mr. Gonzalez said he does not have any grants
through NASA or the National Science Foundation, the two agencies that would
normally support his research…. He arrived at Iowa State in 2001, but none of
his graduate students there have thus far completed their doctoral work
even Gonzalez’s former academic advisors expressed doubts about his performance
at ISU suggests that this is a serious issue. It is worth noting that the
decline in his publication rate corresponds to the time when he started putting
time into an intelligent design project that has produced no peer-reviewed
results. This includes his work on The Privileged Planet and his collaboration
with old-earth creationist Hugh Ross from the ministry Reasons to Believe (for
instance: and
to another analysis of his publication record which includes a
graph of his publication productivity:
Gonzalez had a very successful postdoc
with a good research group, and that carried over to his first faculty
appointment at University of Washington, where he continued to collaborate with
his old colleagues from his Ph.D. and postdoc. However, he peaked in 1999, and
the decline began even while he was still at the University of Washington. Even
more pronounced than the drop in publications is the complete bottom-out in
first authorships that is almost sustained throughout his entire probationary
period leading up to tenure.
So ISU Physics [would be] stuck with a guy who
publishes hardly any papers as primary author, whose publication list contracts
once he strikes out on his own, and, perhaps most importantly, who doesn’t
publish with new colleagues. New tenure-track investigators … absolutely MUST
take an active role in pursuing one another’s research interests in order to
stretch meager funds as far as possible.
In addition to his declining publication record and his failure
to mentor graduate students to completing their programs, it is also notable
that Gonzalez brought in far fewer research grants than his colleagues. The
average tenured faculty in the ISU physics and astronomy department brought in
$1.3 million in grants during their first six years. Gonzalez brought in, at
most, $200,000 during the same amount of time, $64,000 of which was used to pay
a doctoral student at a different university and $58,000 of which was for his
intelligent design book The Privileged Planet. In 2007, Gonzalez told the Ames Tribune that “he was told, beginning with his
three-year tenure review in 2004, that he needed to bring in more research
funding. He added he heard the same message in reviews every year since, as
well. He has made the effort, he said, submitting two grant applications per
year, but to no avail.”"

It was only because of his declining academic record and the fact that tenur at ISU is notoriously hard to achieve. Besides being that he is an Astronomer even if there is a movement out to get ID advocates all fired and denied tenure, why would he matter? He's an astronomer and the current theory of Intelligent Design is a biological theory, which i agree with its premise but not necessarily with every aspect of the theory.

Anyway he talks about two more people who were, as they claim persecuted, one of them being physician Michael Egnor. Engor apparently wrote an essay so dammaging to "Darwinism" that the they had to call the gestapo and [thick German accent] Exterminate the enemy of the furor! [end of thick German accent]. Well according to one post (excuse its harsh language) it was not a problem at all;

"After my having written repeated debunkings of various physicians who are creationists (mostly of the “intelligent design” variety), in
retrospect I should have seen this one coming. I should have seen that the
Discovery Institute, eager to use anyone they can find whom they can represent
to the public as having scientific credentials (never mind whether those
credentials have anything to do with evolutionary biology) and thus dupe the
public into seeing them as having authority when they start laying down ignorant
brain farts about how they “doubt Darwinism,” would settle on physicians. After
all, as I have pointed out before, until recently medical schools taught little
about evolutionary biology (that is, if they taught anything at all about it),
and as a result all too many physicians, particularly the ones whose
undergraduate majors were not biology, tend to be no more knowledgeable about
evolution than your average lawyer….
The reason that a contest with such a
topic was thought to be a good idea, I’d guess, is because evolution-ignorant
creationists like Dr. Egnor are constantly attacking evolution in a manner that
you don’t see other of the basic sciences that form the basis of medicine ever
being attacked. – “Orac”, an oncologist and surgeon, in Train wreck, thy name is Egnor! Blog post, Respectful


"What’s going on here is that Egnor dislikes evolution and is
hoping to de-emphasize its importance. Why? It is possible that he earnestly and
sincerely believes that evolution has not contributed to his art. It is possible
that he earnestly and sincerely believes that recognizing the validity of
evolution would render his life meaningless or without value. It is possible he
is a cynical liar and he wants no readers of the Discovery Institute Ministry of
Media Complaints who credit his perspectives to enter or do well in medical
school. (Hey, if true, he wouldn’t be the first surgeon who knew better
about evolution but still advocated for ID
only to make a buck, gain a
little influence, or exhibit some sort of other ulterior motive.) Whatever his
motivations may be, readers should not credit his testimony: he is at least dead
Further, his perspectives are very difficult to distinguish from
ignorance advocacy. Egnor first came to attention when a blogger at Time
magazine criticized him for not being an expert in evolution. He has stated that
he does not use evolution, but this is more an admission of a willful disregard
for the evolution he does use and upon which his art is based. Taken together,
along with his assurance that the only contribution evolution has made to
medicine was eugenics, his writings bespeak the dangerous combination of
ignorance and arrogance, traits altogether common with creationists, but that
shine in Dr. Egnor to such an extent that a neologism should bear his namesake.”
– Burt Humburg, a physician, in Egnorance: The Egotistical Combination of Ignorance and
. Blog post, The Panda’s Thumb."

Now people on blogs said a lot of nasty things about him on the internet and I do not plan to follow suit, he says he was surprized by the visciousness of the thing written about him. I being a Christian and descdent human being will say he was simply mistaken. But some of those atheist and science bloggers are mean! Egnor shouldn't be surprized that articles about him are often 38% made up of swearing and cursing.

Then next part of the video talks about how the science establishment is suppressing freedom of thought, after analyzing their claims this seems shaky at best but it is true there is a movement to destroy religion. The next part has less to do with interviews and more to do with Intelligent Design versus Evolution. It is time to differentiate between what I agreed with in the next part of the movie and on what I points disagreed.

I agree;
--that there is some evidence one way or another of Intelligent Agency in the universe
--that the scientists don't always do a very good job at explaining how they think life began through natural causes
--that Atheism and Philosophical Naturalism are inherently metaphysical and unprovable
--that many atheists are incorrectly equating atheism with science and trying to create a flase dichotomy of sorts
-- that there is an active movement among atheists to devalue religion.
--that science (Evolution in particular) can be used to rationalize evil deeds such as killing off the weak

I disagree;
--That Intelligent Agency is incompatible with evolution and the current scientific theories
--That science that can't attempt to give natural explanations whih may help our understanding of a deity and how he created the universe.
--that Evolution is religious, evolution can be tested and validated/falsified by genetic genealogy, the fossil record, structural homology therefore it is a science, Naturalism (which one could argue evolution is based off of) on the other hand is an unfalsifiable philosophical system.
--that evolution rules out the possibility of the existence of a deity and that we should equate the evolutionary paradigm ultimately to atheism; By doing that we are simply letting the atheists win.
--that Evolution ultimately leads to Eugenics, Nazism, and Racism. Also I should probably point out that religion and philosophy can also be used to rationalize evil.

Among all of these I will only touch upon two; Evolution being ultimately atheistic, and of Darwin's ideas leading to Nazism.

Many have made fun of this concept that it ultimately leads to Nazism, but lets look at why they think this.

Eugenics is the attempt to make Mankind a better species by getting rid of the defective genes (farmers have done this for thousands of years with their animals). In doing this one must sterilize or kill those with defective genes in order to stop them from breeding. Now Natural Selection is "survival of the fittest." It is natures method selecting those with the best genes and the best advantages in a particular environment, it is for the good of the species. Natural Selection utlimately decides which organism will survive by which ones are able reproduce.

So yes it could work from evolution.

Now Nazism interestingly enough orignates from the occult, it grew partially out of an idea known as Ariosophy (as well as several other beliefs such as Theozoology and Armanism) which stated that the Germans were the pure "Aryan race." The Aryan race was actually supposed to be the race which came from Atlantis who were supposed to have been the most advanced people on earth. And the Germans were supposed to be the purest branch of the Aryan race. Hitler thought he needed to get rid of all the impurities in Jews and other peple who were not close to pure Aryan. Another idea which permeates Nazism is Theozoology which was made up by an Ex-Cistercian monk named Jörg Lanz-Liebenfels. It stated that God created two races, the Ape-like Animal people and the God-like Aryan people. And the Aryan women were overpowered by sxually active Ape-men which made the rce impure; so They needed to purify it. Now Htiler probably didn't hold most of these bizarre beliefs but he definitely did base his ideology off of them.

So at first glance Nazism and Eugenics seem to fit hand and glove with Evolution but wait a minute; evolution says diversity is better because then you have more of chance to survive becaue you will have more advantages. If you keep the line pure without interbreeding then the species will eventually become 100% homozygous and any change in condition could doom that species. So the entire premise behind Nazism of keeping the race pure doesn't dit evolution since evolution favors diversity. Also these ideas came out of religious beliefs not scientific theories (such as Manichaeanism and Occultism), they have nothing but a similar premise to do with evolution.

Also the Eugenics Hitler was using was fallacious because it turns out Ashkenazi Jews are some of the smartest more productive people on the planet, a total of 28% of Nobel Prize winners are composed of Jews.

And now to the subject of evolution, science, and atheism being in conflict. People like Richrd Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, William Provine, and PZ Myers are the ones who want to see religion wiped of the face of the planet. They want you to think science is against and out to destroy religion. They don't want you to think you can believe in ID and Evolution. They want to see you and I as atheists. Of course they are going to make it look like most supporters of evolution are atheists. Of course they want to make it look like its either church or the laboratory. Here are just a few theistic (Christian) supporters of evolution
--Kenneth Miller
--Francis Collins
--Theodosius Dovsansky
--Pierre Teilhard De Chardin (athough his theology was really out there in the ozone layer)
Theologians, philosophers and other non-scientists
--B.B. Warfield
--Billy Graham
--Charles Hodge
--There are also many other names mentioned in the Clergy letter project

You can believe in Intelligent Design, God, and Evolution all at once even, evolution and God are not incompatible.

Evolution only rules out young earth creationism. It does not rule out God despite what Dawkins says. There are reasons to believe in God despite the fact that evolution (speaking of macroevolution in particular) might be true. The attack on the belief in both God and evolution is only an attempt to try to get theists into the ID or Creationism category and to clear the middle of the road. The radicals on the other end of the spectrum are trying to do the same thing.

Ultimately we must decide by objectively looking at both sides and judicially considering the facts, and finally comming to a conclusion with our God-given reason. It is ultimately up to you whether you take the atheist stance, the ID or Creationist stance, or if you take the Theistic Evolutionist stance.

I found I actually agreed with a surprizing amount of the video, although I still see several glaring flaws. The entire point of the video is to say Intelligent Design advocates are being persecuted and denied their academic rights. And my response it, "You not being persecuted, you are not being fair, come on out and tells us your position, lets bring it on..."

Now for the epilogue. The video ended with a few ID advocates as well as theologian Steven Kini came out to each say something bout Intelligent Design. Naturally I asked a question about evolution listened to them finish. Then I went home and immediately started writing this blogpost.

I hope the intended message is given that I am not against the general idea of Intelligent Design, I simply think the IDers have done a bad job so far, and that they should do better.

Well take out the fact that Ben Stein sort of needs to do a little more research the movie was actually rather interesting, but it did have some untruths and so I would caution my fellow Christians before giving it their wholehearted support.

"Test all things and hold fast to what is good," -- The Apostle Paul, 2 Thessalonians 5:21.

Friday, April 25, 2008

"10 questions every intelligent Christian must answer" answered!

One day I was perusing on the Internet and I came across this video. It is titled "ten questions every intelligent Christian must answer."

An interesting video, although I have yet to graduate High School I am still a smart student and decided to take a stab at it.

The video starts out by saying the maker of the video is assuming that the person watching is an intelligent person employed in business, economics, government services, natural sciences etc. The next statement pretty much defines how much this person knows about intelligent Christians, he says;

"I would like to talk to about a rather interesting question, have you ever
thought about using your college education to think about your faith?"

He made one major false assumption, that thinking Christians avoid thinking about their faith and are encouraged not to question it. I would like to direct this person to 1 Thessalonians 5:21 which in fact tells us to test everything and not take anything in blind faith. Now the person goes on to talk about Amputees. He goes on to point out that 3 out of 4 doctors (or 75% to be exact) believe that God is doing medical miracles on earth everyday. And he also points out that Christians believe in the power of prayers.

Then he asks this question;

Why won't God heal Amputees?

Well, the answer to that question is somewhat complex, first of all he assumes that God does not cure amputees, there have been accounts though spurious of God healing people with amputated limbs. Secondly he is assuming that according to Christian theology actually states humans do deserve to have their legs grown back, and lastly he assumes that God is a divine candy machine (insert prayer and a million dollars come out!). God may have other plans for this person. Also if this person is not a Christian and doesn't believe in God then there is no reason for God to heal that person because the person doesn't even believe God can do it and neither does he want it. He states that this is a rationalization but it isn't, it is basic theology.

Also if you don't want anything to do with God and you don't give anything back and when you lose your leg you ask him to generously regrow your leg when you've ignore him all your life do you expect him to give you back your leg?

The next question is asked in the same spirit;

Why are there so many starving people in our world?

Well Because there is evil in the world, and many people are not Christian and they are not praying to ask God to help them. Also I don't think this person has heard of organizations like World Vision which are trying to feed children and the fact that the Christian Church is earnestly trying to get food, clothing, clean water, and education to them. I don't know but it seems like God is answering the prayers of those who are praying. Also the malnutrition is often because of the poor economies and poor state of many of these countries, it seems to be more our fault then God's.

Now onto the next question;

Why does God demand the deaths of so many innocent people in the bible

Um...innocent people? Lets take a quick look at the verses he cites.

Exodus 35:2 says: "Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death."

Well first of all notice that in the New Testament Jesus abrogates this law. Also this particular regulation is only for the forty years that the Israelites were in the desert, it is not enforced afterwords.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says: 18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

What kind of rebellion are they talking about? They are obviously not talking about a kindergartner who will not eat his vegetables they are talking about a juvenile delinquent who deserves the death penalty, this is not killing an innocent teenager.

Leviticus 20:13 says: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I am not ready to get into a debate on whether homosexuality is alright, my position is that it isn't right, but that does not particularly matter at this point. These were regulatory laws for Israel to keep social, moral, and economic order. If you were able to break laws and just get a slap on the wrist, more people would do it because the punishment wouldn't be so bad. If that happened there would be a break down in social order.

Also, the gay person is not innocent in this case, he has broken the law.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 says: If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Once again the author of this video is assuming the woman is innocent, and second of all these were regulatory laws for Israel to keep order, if a woman had gotten away with a slap on the wrist other women might start to think "Oh she got away with it I could cheat on my husband too." This would cause a moral and social breakdown which would be smart to avoid.

Before he goes on he says "It doesn't make any sense doesn't it? Why would God demand the death of someone over such trivial matters?" I guess I must add that cheating on your spouse is not a "trivial matter," and neither is being a teenaged menace to society, and finally that does not matter Christ has already come now it is the age of grace.

Now to the next question;

Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense

Well, first of all, it is not a science textbook so his criticism is flawed from the start. Second of all the bible does say some things which sound scientifically accurate

Isaiah 40:22; implies earth is round because the Hebrew word for circle can be translated "sphere" (so do proverbs 8:27 and Job 26:10). Also in the same verse it implies the universe is expanding, something very few early cultures guessed.

Job 26:7 implies that earth is floating through space.

Jeremiah 33:22 says the stars are too numerous to be numbered exactly contrary to the scientific opinions of the day that there were only a few thousand stars.

Even statements in Genesis 1, such as Genesis 1:11-12 could be read to imply evolution with the statement "Let the earth bring forth" although this interpretation is somewhat unconventional.

Now to examine what he terms "nonsense;"

No the bible does not necessarily say the earth is 6,000 years old and was created in six 24 hour days. The word for day can be used to represent a long period of time and he is leaving out the fact the the date of 6,000 years is made from accumulation of the genealogies assuming there are no gaps.

The bible doesn't necessarily say there was a global flood either, the word used for mountain can mean hill, and the language used in the text can refer to a local region such as the flood plain in which Noah lived.

The story of Jonah getting swallowed by a whale was probably a miracle, there is no reason to discredit the bible on this charge.

Well about Adam being created from dust, its not nearly as ridiculous when you think of dust as coming from the soil and the fact that when an animal or human dies it is decomposed and becomes part of the soil, then the soil is used for nutrients by plants which are eaten by other animals or humans, then this animal gives birth to its offspring by using some of the food it ate. Also we are essentially made of star dust which became earth dust and then life was formed by God which led to us and so we are essentially created from dust. Either way that was probably an allegory of God creating Adam as separate from other humans (i.e. neanderthals).

He goes on to accentuate the fact that they are all nonsense. Well after looking at them closely they are not as nonsensical as they seem. Also a God might write nonsense to give us a moral or lesson, Jesus did this all the time (except they were called parables).

On to the next question;

Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?

Well, was he? To me God seems to more tolerate it as a social construct, most societies were built on the backs of slaves back in those days. Its like today we have people with underpaid jobs who can barely support their families but they often form the backbone of the work force, a necessary evil in other words. the Judaeo-Christian God is a God of order and disrupting the backbone of the economy would have caused social disorder.

Also Back in those days slavery was no decided on the basis of your gender or ethnic group it was decided on whether you could pay the bills. Also In Israel slaves would be realised in the year of Jubilee unless they wanted to remain with their masters

Next question;

Why do bad things happen to good people?

This is a surprisingly basic question for being in the top ten killer questions to the Christian faith. God does not say he will shield good people from bad things. In fact many times he says the opposite and that Christians will go through trials and tribulations in which they would have to rely on him. he is also assuming that "good people" exist. The only way someone could truly be called a good person is if they were 100% flawless. They were never selfish, never greedy, never told a lie, never had lustful thoughts, was always respectful to his parents, never tried to tears someone down, never hated, was never materialistic. This person would have to be the pinnacle of perfection. This is impossible for a human being to attain on his or her own. This is a straw man argument, it does not threaten the faith at all.

next question;

Why don't Jesus' miracles give any evidence

This statement is misleading at best, there may not be evidence of every single miracle but there is a great amount of evidence that points towards Jesus being whom he claims to be, now to the next question;

How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?

This question is absurd, it presupposes the fact that Jesus would appear to you in the first place. It also presupposes that God is like a vending machine that will do whatever you want it to. Jesus does not appear to us because when we ask him that we don't really want him to we are simply taunting him and he asks us not to in Deuteronomy 6:16.

Also he is not going to appear to me unless it is part of his plan to redeem Mankind.

Now to the next question;

Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

I am surprised this person would bring up this centuries old misconception. Obviously the confusion comes from the Roman Catholic belief in Transubstantiation (that the bread would become Jesus' body and the wine his blood). Being protestant I do not believe in Transubstantiation. It is probably symbolic of Jesus being our strength and our hope. He did not really mean he wanted us to drink his blood or eat his body. Its also kind of amusing that even though he doesn't even think satanism is wrong he still thinks it has negative connotations, most critics of Christianity embrace the term satanic as good.

The last three questions are quite easy, now for the last killer question! The grand fanali! The final deathblow to Christianity...

Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

Alright I apologize for the misleading preamble. I will give him credit for asking some pretty challenging questions but this one can be answered by simple logic ; even though they pray for God to guide the marriage, Christian couples still have free will, and God can help but only if they are willing to let him, and let him guide through their marriage. Unfortunately this does not at all challenge the question of the existence of God.

After looking at these ten questions I must say they have failed to defeat Christianity, or the idea of the existence of a loving God.

If have a response please post it in the comments and God bless.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Restated statement of faith

For some reason I thought my beliefs were well understood. I am an evangelical Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the bible and still accepts the current scientific theories on the origin of the universe ans the diversity of life. I thought it was well understood that I was a Christian Apologist. Well after reviewing this comment on my last post I realize that I was gravely mistaken; the parts which are sadly misconstrued I will put in bold.

The problem with Christians is the same problem with any other group of people,
it is made up of people and people will always make mistakes. People posting on
youtube should take extra care that they are presenting the truth. Obviously
there is a lot of ignorance out there but not all Christians or all YE
Creationists are ignorant
. Many of are trying to understand the points of common
agreement and the points of disagreement.Created Rationalist could you create a
post stating what you do believe? I am curious to see how much we agree on. I
believe we will have more in common than in opposition.

Sigh....I don't know How this person thinks that I think all Christians are ignorant,

this is what I said;

You may remember my statement about Ben Stein being unknowledgeable about
evolution and the nature of science what I said here has been replaced with these bold letters to tell you I should not have said that, here are some
unfortunate examples;
first video Ben Stein butchers the term evolution (or Darwinism). Now although
Darwinism is an actual
, it is not the theory of evolution itself, merely the underlying
philosophical concept which Natural Selection is associated with. He like many
creationists seems to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, this is not true
considering that there are evolutionists who do not believe in abiogenesis (such
as advocates of Panspermia
and some theistic evolutionists). And since he calls evolution "lightning
striking a mud puddle he obviously doesn't know what evolution or abiogenesis
are."In the second video Ben Stein seems to be mistaking evolution (or
"Darwinism" as he calls it) for the secular theory on the origin of every
concept known to science (life, gravitation, etc.) and thus stretches across
every field of science (biology, astronomy, physics). In actuality evolution is
only an attempt to explain the diversity of life and how organisms change over
time, and how genes drift through populations. I don't think Christians or anyone
associated with the Intelligent Design movement should support Stein, he
unfortunately is also rather dishonest in his tactics.

Where did I even use the word Christian except at the end where I said I didn't think Christians or Intelligent Design advocates should support the movie expelled? I said many creationists misunderstand it, this does not mean most are ignorant, only some. Also I definitely do not think all Christians are ignorant, I have no idea how this person got that. I definitely don't think that my coreligionists are all ignorant yokels. Unless this person equates belief in young earth creationism with Christianity and evolution with Atheism.

Really I don't care what a Christian decides to believe about creation. If you decide you want to believe that the earth was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago and you are secure in your faith then go ahead. But there are also many Christians myself including who are not satisfied with young earth creationism and would rather believe God used mainly natural processes to get us here. Now both sides have a tendency to attack each other on this subject. But when my position is attacked I will defend it. There are a lot of people who believe in God and the bible because they know secular science and the bible are reconcilable. Saying it can't be can hurt their faith in God and the bible. And I will fight against anyone who is a potential threat to my brothers and sisters of faith. I believe you should review what Jesus said about those who led others astray with their teachings. Also if a young earth creationist, atheistic evolutionist, theistic evolutionist or anyone says something I know to be wrong about the natural world or the bible I will correct them, as Jesus said, the truth will set you free.

I will end this by telling you exactly what I believe;
--That Jesus Christ lived, literally died on the cross for all mankind and literally rose again on the third day.
--That Jesus is God incarnate, and the creator of the universe
--That the universe and all life was ultimately created by God
--and that Christians rather then indulging themselves in petty conflicts should work to make a better place according to the Creation Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and spread the gospel as well and clearly as possible according to the Great Commission (Mark 16:15).

I hope no one will misinterpret that...

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Launching the skepticologists

Just in case you are wondering what the skepticologists are; skepticologists is a new TV show that basically looks at pseudoscientific and superstitious notions such as astrology and channeling crystals and debunks them. It sounds interesting, I am going to keep an eye on it. One of the people on the show is the guy that runs the Bad Astronomy Blog which deals with pseudoscience and things such as that. He is a rather well known figure in the skeptical community, though not a harcore skeptic (I believe in God, the supernatural, spirits, prayer, and everything which comes along with being a Christian) I think it is a good idea, it promotes using our God-given reason rather then blindly following ignorance and superstition.

Re-posted: The New Answers Book's attack on Christianity

I posted this earlier then deleted it because I thought it was too harsh towards Young Earth Creationists (the predominant demographic of the people I know). It doesn't have anything that will get me suspended but still my blog is in its infancy and I can't risk having too many people mad at me. I am going to post it again because it needs to be posted (also tell me whether or not it is too harsh);

Yes, as odd as it may sound I have to defend my Christian beliefs from AiG
creationists. Young earth creationists, although they have good intentions, no
one other then atheists have done a better job then them in tearing some
people's faith in the bible to pieces and building up a few others then them.The
entire third chapter of the New Answers book
(which I will be critiquing) is
devoted to attacking theistic evolution; the authors of the book start out
talking about the scopes
monkey trial
and how William Jennings Brian the defender of creationism was
an old earth creationist, so therefore his attempt to defend creationism was
forfeit. They don't seem to wonder that it might have been because William
Jennings Brian was wrong about evolution that he did such a lousy job defending
creationism.There next move is somewhat unnerving. They say they will be taking
quotes from what atheists said about theistic evolutionists to show theistic
evolution is wrong! Oh good grief! Using that logic we might as well say
Christians were wrong in reinterpreting the bible when scientists said earth
went around the sun. They end the paragraph by saying that reinterpreting the
bible gives you leeway to reinterpret anything you want to in the bible. This
must be addressed, this is only true if you are invalidly reinterpreting the
bible. Reinterpreting the Genesis 1 to mean God created the universe over six
ages is valid; fifteen hundred years before geologists found earth was 4.6
billion years old or biologists found evolution was true many of the church
fathers believed that because of II
Peter 3:8
the days in Genesis were a thousand years long. The next part is
their attack on the scriptural validity of theistic evolution, but unfortunately
they are all operating of at least a few misconceptions.In the next part they
begin quoting the anti-creationist Thomas Huxley;--first of all, why are these
supposed creationists quoting an atheistic evolutionist? He was trying to
destroy belief in the bible in the first place. They surely wouldn't quote an
atheist denouncing the Christian acceptance of heliocentrism as rejecting
scripture would they?--And second of all this is what he said in his quote
(taken from his essay "Lights of the Church and Science");

"I am fairly at a
loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology
must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures.
The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with
Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests
upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no
evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them.
If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were
not ordained by Jahveh; if the ‘ten words’ were not written by God’s hand on the
stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the
Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the
Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of
apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of
the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which
is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers
of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted
flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of
Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?"

What he said is absolutely true the
bible is worthless if there is no historical or scientific merit behind it and
thank goodness Huxley is wrong and the bible does have factual merit. Other then
that this quote is meaningless because it presupposes Christians who believe in
an old earth and evolution deny the Bibles historical and scientific merit.In
the next paragraph they say he was out to destroy Christianity and vigorously
attacked the old earth position, so one would wonder why these young earth
creationists would use this to stand for anything. The next statement is perhaps
the weakest point in the entire chapter. They give a verse Matthew
where Jesus is talking about marriage. And says in the beginning God
made them male and female. This is interesting but the verse could be
interpreted to mean the beginning of mankind. Despite upholding the doctrine of
marriage, it means nothing to creation.Over the next few paragraphs they go on
quoting and talking about Thomas Huxley praising his passionate dislike of those
who tried to reinterpret the bible to fit with the current scientific thinking.
If the authors of the New Answers book think this is making them look good I
don't know what to say. Who cares what an atheistic evolutionist thinks about
Christians. How about we do the same thing with the doctrine of geocentrism.The
next section of the chapter doesn't get much better, they start out with a quote
from Charles Hodge
saying that the church has had to reinterpret the bible once before to fit with
modern science. Unfortunately young earth creationists may have to learn the
same lesson the 17th century Catholic church had to learn. I would suggest these
young earth creationists to look at proverbs
and get some humility.Anyway they move on to the argument that the bible
teaches "no death before sin," unfortunately their scriptural support is rather
weak, Genesis
which they use to support death being caused by the fall; there is just
one problem Genesis 3 only has 24 verses, the verse doesn't even exist! This is
either a typo or outright deception, (lets assume its a typo). Romans
and 8:18-22
can be interpreted to imply that the death came to Man by Man; (I'll admit
Romans 5:12 is one of their stronger points but it still does not prove it). Genesis 1:31 does not contradict the mechanisms of natural selection or the natural
processes and if you think about it, creation is "very good" with a stable
ecosystem, inhabitable environment; everything just right for humans. God
sanctions the weekly slaughtering of animals and as any anti-christian animal
rights activist will tell you, God does not consider animal death evil. This
does not at all affect the idea of a loving God.Next they bring up a quote by a
liberal Christian, episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, Spong makes an
interesting point by saying theistic evolution demands an imperfect creation.
But this is simply not true. We live in very good time to exist. The ice age is
over, all the giant carnivores are extinct, the climate is temperate (if we
lived back in the days of Pangaea over 80% of the planet would be an enormous
desert and the rest an ocean). The creation may not be perfect in the same way
as God himself but it is still very good time for humans to live in. God is no
longer guiding the natural processes even if he is still involved in them one
way or another, God has gotten us here, there is no reason to go further. Now it
is up to us to decide whether or not we will enjoy God's creation and tend to it
as he asked, or squander it and waste because of our greed.They close that part
of the chapter by saying that theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary
creationists) need to come to grips that the God they worship is not the true
God. But I don't think they realize the discrepancies between the God of a young
earth and the God of the bible either. Essentially the God of a young earth
would punish mankind by submitting innocent animals to being killed even though
they were innocent, and this is the loving God that gave his life so I could be
forgiven? We must be living in different universes.They end the chapter by
saying two things;--That once people start doubting the bible, (a.k.a. the young
earth interpretation of the bible) they begin to relegate the bible to a book of
suggestions.--And that we are relying on fallible human opinion when we trust
science only.To the first one, that is up to the person, strong Christians did
not reject the bible when they found geocentrism was false. I think Christians
should do fine as long as they do not extrapolate beyond that to say the entire
bible and Genesis is not true, which is simply not the case. There re lots of
archaeological and other scientific discoveries that point to the bible being

NOTE: I don't know why its making that weird structure, I can't correct it.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Answers In Genesis on the fused chromosomes

A little while back I read an AiG article entitled Tail of Two Chromosomes. It was answering Kenneth Miller's argument for human evolution from earlier primates (that the human chromosome number two was the result of the fusing of two chimpanzee chromosomes). It basically said that it is the result of two human chromosomes fusing. The claimed that in other species it is connected to illnesses. And that it does not lead to speciation. After asking Miller himself I realized that the author of the article was missing the point of the article, this is what he said in his reply;

Thanks very much for your note:

[my email to him]
Hi I'm a high school freshman from
Temecula, I have reviewed your analysis of creationism and it seems reasonable.
I have been looking for a response to a creationist response to your fused
chromosome argument found here,
they appear to do a good job in defending their case against common descent
(which being an evangelical I am rather pleased I'll admit) but I am still
skeptical, since I could not find a good rebuttal to it I have decided to ask
you personally to review it.

[his response]
I read the article, and was
absolutely amazed at how completely its author missed the point. The fact
that one of our chromosomes has a fusion site within it is not what makes us
different from other primates, and it is not what makes us human. Most of
the "rebuttal" is directed against those two points - which I have never
The real issue is simple. Do we or do we
not share common ancestry with the other great apes, all of which have 48
chromosomes. If we do share such ancestry, then evolution makes a
straightforward, testable prediction.... namely, that two primate chromosomes
must have fused together in the line leading to us, and that our genomes should
carry the evidence of that fusion. If we do not find that fusion point,
then evolution in terms of common ancestry for our species would be argued
The fact that the prediction is fulfilled is a powerful
confirmation of the evolutionary ancestry of our species. It does not
answer the question of how our genetic information differs from other primates,
nor was it meant to. It simply is a test of common ancestry, a test that
evolution passes.
Has any creationist ever made such a specific
prediction to put their hypotheses to such a scientific test? I believe
that the answer is no.
Best Wishes,

Now to explain what this means to those who don't have as much science up their sleeves; as you know we humans have 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. Now great apes (chimpanzees, gorrillas etc.) have 48 chromosomes. Now what would have to have happened between them nd us is that two of the chromosomes would have had to fuse together. And sure enough our chromosome number 2 is made of two fused chromosomes. How do we know this? Well on the ends of chromosomes are caps called telomeres (which dammage to them is linked to aging). Well on a fused chromosome there would be two talomeres end to end. And sure enough there are. This is evidence of common descent. This does not show very well on the creationist's part. I hate to be the bad guy to my creationist companions and family, but it appears this is good evidence of common descent. This is of course helped out by ERVs (nasty little buggers that invade our cells and can fuse their RNA into our genome) and the fact that we have found many transitional fossils, one such interesting fossil is tiktaalik, a fish which has the rudiments of legs and a neck. If anybody has n objection to the evidence I have put forth please do, I welcome debate and discussion.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

String theory?

After speaking to my friend Splendid Elles on the string theory and other universes I came across this video.

It seems strange; according to Elles it would eliminate any need for God, but then again it seems completely compatible with God of some sort. Religions have been predicting the existence of other universes for the past 10,000 years.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

My first post on this blog

Irritating name for an article isn't it? It sounds like a preschooler telling about his first day on the swing, alas, it is difficult to make a good first impression.

If I were to introduce myself as a defender of belief in God I might immediately be seen as just another religious nut trying to shove his beliefs down the throats of innocent people passing by this blog.

And again, if I were to say I am a defender and promoter of science and that one of my intentions is to denounce irrationality and pseudoscience, I might equally alienate my fellow theists into thinking I m merely a religious skeptic (I do not intend to make a false dichotomy between science and religion of course).

Perhaps the best way to introduce myself would be to tell how I got to becoming a blogger. You see I am a sixteen year old high school student and I'll beat you to the punch line; yes I am a Christian and I am not at all ashamed of it. I hate to sound like I am bragging but I am leader of a ministry at my church (this is of course because--I founded the ministry) which we basically meet every Tuesday and discuss science, apologetics, and other things related to science and Christianity. We also have a newspaper which I give out each Sunday. Well I started this organization to not only promote a love for science among other Christians but also to defend the Christian faith from all angles including scientific angles.

Well anyway getting on with this tale, a little while ago (about a month) I discovered an atheist friend of mine had a blog as well as many others. After seeing her blog it wasn't very long before I was introduced to the entire atheist blogosphere (probably a term describing a constellation of blogs with similar purpose and themes). I also ran into the all the buzz about the documentary which recently came out called Expelled: No intelligence Allowed. After reading several reviews and watching Ben Stein talking about the show and evolution I was somewhat amazed at the utter lack of knowledge of the shows producers as it pertains to evolution. I soon saw the need for increased interest in science among those who are religious. I also realized that many were equating theism with anti-science. Also I was somewhat intimidated by the fact that there were so many blogs opposed to belief in God and Christianity.

Now there are Christian blogs and websites but unfortunately so many of them are not well informed and used outdated arguments and most of their case has been refuted. So being that I have the upper hand in this area I have decided to go up and start a blog to try to give reasonable defense of the Christian faith.

Rather then make a list of what I am going to discuss like some sort of college course I will just tell you basically what I intend to blog about; science, faith, and probably evolution and the creation/evolution controversy. My other plan is to provide a descent pathway of useful and accurate information about the world around you; my plan is to enlighten you, not to trick you.

And that concludes my first post on this blog, to all who are reading this, good day and God bless.