Created and Rational

More from James Randi

2009-05-23T04:21:00.000-07:00

I usually don't comment on skeptics generally, but I did find this interesting;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0hgP3ioAeA&feature=channel_page

The Carlos hoax, in which a teen aged actor was set up by the skeptic and magician James Randi to act as a channeler receiving messages from an "ascended master" by the name of Carlos was meant to show how easily the media could be drawn into the channeling sensation. It is true that there is an amazing amount of silliness for lack of better words in the media, pseudoscience and the paranormal seem to be much more popular then true science in some cases.

Hopefully the next generation will be less credulous.

Does evolution inevitably lead to atheism? A response to a CMI article

2009-03-22T19:21:00.000-07:00

The belief that atheism and evolution are intertwined is probably the most significant motivation behind the creationist movement. As you all know 2009 is the 150th anniversary since Darwin published his book, most would understand the cause for excitement is that in that year a theory which is now one of the founding theories in biology was first proposed. Creationists claim it is because Darwin made a theory which is held by some to make God redundant, however as far as I can tell the starting of the year 2009 caused a lot more excitement in creationist circles then evolutionist or atheist circles. One article (its also an editorial in Journal of Creation) on the CMI website would be an example of this concern.

How odd. Why is the whole world caught up this year in such euphoria over
Darwin?
Why haven’t the achievements of other great scientists ever captured
the global imagination—scientists like Sir Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, James
Maxwell, Albert Einstein or Gregor Mendel?

Well this isn't entirely true, 2005 was the "World Year of Physics" in memory of Einstein's work on general relativity. General relativity has had a large impact on the field of physics so it is simply natural that the 100 year anniversary of Einstein publishing his theory was commemorated.

It is the same with Darwin, he made many contributions to biology which greatly improved our understanding of how organisms relate to each other. Darwin's theory also helped us realize who we are exactly and where we fit in the ecosystem, it led to the modern understanding of the human race. Although it is true that atheistic organizations also celebrate it because it replaced God as the direct creator it is mostly about Darwin's contributions to science.

Because Darwin 2009 is not about science. Look at who’s cheering.
The
International Humanists Union honour Darwin because evolution, in their words,
‘made creator deities redundant’. Note, evolution made the Creator redundant.
Sir Julian Huxley gloated, ‘Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the
creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.' Underline,
Darwin removed God.
Atheist extraordinaire, Richard Dawkins said, ‘ … Darwin
made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’ Observe, Darwin
justifies atheism.

As I mentioned earlier, of course atheists and secular humanists are going to remember Darwin for the ideological extrapolations which his theory led to. It should be noted that yes while evolution makes it possible to not believe in God, it does not make it impossible to believe in God. God could still be the creator of the universe besides the fact that he used evolution to create life. Evolution does not automatically imply God doesn't exist anymore then the theory of gravity does, since gravity draws objects together in space rather then God directly pushing them together.

The author continues, stating supposed evidence for intelligent design and creation and concluding that this year is an opportunity to spread the creation message, this is discussed in other articles and by other sources.

Now while it does not matter if the celebration of Darwin does have to do with Atheism, it does matter that it leads many to believe that evolution rules out God. Creationists think that by fighting evolution they are helping to restore and strengthen the faith of Christians as well as the over all respectability of Christianity. In reality they are helping to destroy Christianity by making the church look backwards, which has an adverse affect on the number of Christians leaving the chuch. At the same time atheists are not facilitating the debates end either; by promoting evolution as inherently anti-theistic they are only giving the creationists more incentive to fight the evolutionary theory, thus prolonging the controversy. What needs to be done is to focus on the motivation for the creationist denial of evolution; if we theistic evolutionists show both creationists and atheists that evolution is compatible with belief in God then the controversy will end soon thereafter.

Second post of the year (pathetic I know)

2009-02-28T23:49:00.000-08:00

I don't have much time so this post will be short; I decided to make a post before the close of the month to keep making one post per month at least. I have been rather slothful I'll admit and I intend to fix it eventually, but not tonight; I will try to post another article of meaning tomorrow. For now to keep my readers (assuming there are any left) entertained; I found a rather interesting video series debunking and young earth creation astronomy. I agree with very little he says in regards to theology, but he does a great job with the science.

Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked 1

Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked 2

Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked 3

Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked 4

Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked 5

Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked 6

Enjoy: (note that due to the haste in which I put it together I might have made a few errors in the linking).

Skepticism and the church

2009-01-20T21:08:00.000-08:00

Skepticism is a powerful tool; it is one of the essential tools of science, in fact Carl Sagan called science a marriage of skepticism and wonder.

The hard thing about skepticism is that in order to be a true skeptic, one must question the validity of all ideas even those which are cherished. Every assertion must be supported by a degree of evidence whether this evidence is forensic, experimental, or observational. accepting an idea or claim at face value without investigating its reliability can cost you money or even a person's life (as in the case of quack medical cures). Now this isn't an essay on why one needs to be skeptical; there are several books which encourage skepticism, or the compatibility between religion and a skeptical worldview. The purpose of this post is to discuss the need for skepticism in one particular social institution: the church.

I consider myself an evangelical Christian, however this does not keep me from saying that credulity runs deep in many Evangelical christian circles. Now this gullibility isn't universal, many Evangelical churches encourage their members to read the bible to compare what the bible says with what the pastor says. Churches like these encourage their congregations to think for themselves deciding what the bible actually says; not what the past claims the bible says. This kind of skepticism is great concerning doctrinal issues which have an affect on a churchgoers daily life such as tithing or prophecy. If a pastor says the the world is going to end next Tuesday, the congregation has no obligation to believe him since Jesus said you will know neither the day nor the hour of my coming (Matthew 24:36) which renders any attempt to make an end times cult foiled. People are also encouraged to ask questions concerning the bible, in many but not all churches, a person in a strongly dispensationalist (believing in the the rapture followed by a seven year tribulation and Christs second coming) church can be an open preterist (the belief that Christ already came somewhere around 70 A.D. and that we are not living in the millennial reign of Christ); they simply cannot be ushers, assistant pastors, deacons etc.

But the problem is that while the church is very skeptical, even intolerant of things which are not considered biblical (channeling crystals, astrology, alien abductions etc.) many evangelicals are very gullible when it comes to things the bible doesn't rule out. This would include instance involving faith-healings, sightings of angels, demonic possession, encounters with Jesus, and witchcraft. Many stories with such elements are rarely checked, and the reason is quite obvious; they are biased towards these events so they tend to be less doubtful of them. I am not denying that I think any of these events happen. I would be more likely to believe a story about a missionary being saved from headhunters by an angel, and would be more inclined to attribute a New Age gurus contact with an ascended master to hallucinations, sleep paralysis, or fabrication. Since I think such events occur and I want them to occur; I wouldn't mind God sending angels to protect me, or Jesus meeting me on the road and since I believe God exists for reasons which are beyond the scope of this article I find an encounter with an angel more plausible then a power Juju. We all have biases and other religious people would react the same way, but we must put our biases aside and question the truth of these tails whether or not they align with our religious beliefs.

Now what am I asking? I am asking Christians to be just a little more skeptical about certain topics, such as things the bible does not rule out. Christians and religious believers in general are known for gullibility, however Christians shouldn't be, the bible tells us to be skeptical (2 Thessalonians 5:21) and to test all things, using reason to attain truth. One area where skepticism would be a great advantage is faith-healing. Being a Christian I do believe in faith-healing and that one day there might be a true faith healer, but most current faith-healers appear to be charlatans taking advantage of the gullible. Most diseases they supposedly cure are psychogenic illnesses or even outright fabrications. Faith healers have gained a reputation for dishonesty in our modern age.

A little skepticism might be as simple as asking the faith healer to heal someone of Down's syndrome or another largely incurable disease; or document how the faith healer's prayers affected the person's illness, noting also how illness was affected by the prayers. Also compare what the faith healer says concerning theology with biblical theology, if he is really sent by God then his words should agree with what the bible teaches. Another important thing is to scrutinize his behavior; assuming Christianity is true, those who are endowed with the holy spirit should act accordingly (showing love, kindness, generosity, self-control, altruism, humility etc.).

Such methods can apply to other topics such as self-proclaimed prophets or those who claim to be the second coming of Christ.

Stories involving encounters with supernatural beings should be treated with the same type of skepticism, here are some guidelines;
--Ask if there were any other witnesses, and if possible try to interview them to hear their side of the story.
--consider alternatives (were they hallucinating, were they mistaken, were they lying)
--make sure all the elements of the story are not contradictory and that all the witnesses give relatively the same story.

Now you may ask why go through all the trouble of investigating such stories? The reason is quite sober; many people live out their lives on the assumption that those stories are true. If they are not true, then the believers in these tails are living a lie; if you are living based off a false premise, you will have a distorted view of reality which could lead you to make bad decisions and even put your life or the lives of others in danger. From both a biblical and from a secular perspective skepticism can save a man's soul.

A Christian perspective on Radiometric dating

2008-12-03T17:45:00.000-08:00

Not to lazily hand the research over to someone else but this is a rather interesting paper on radiometric dating by a Christian arguing for the accuracy of radiometric dating.

I must say it is refreshing to know you have allies

A Review of Answers In Genesis' review of Eugenie Scotts talk on science and faith part 2

2008-11-29T19:40:00.000-08:00

Now they begin to discuss how faith affects scientific research, it is true that science owes a significant part of its ideological foundations to a Christian theistic worldview but does this mean that we should force a certain interpretations of the bible on the scientific community? The fact is that while the young earth interpretation was once an adequate interpretation because it did not contradict what science knew at the time evidence of an old earth, evolution, and a very old universe have been uncovered which contradicts it and a better interpretation of the bible is needed.

Anyways the creationist author goes on to state the following paragraph;

What I’ve tried to make clear so far is that one’s belief about God does make a
difference in how one understands science and what one thinks about the origin
of life. Specifically, while creationists do value inferential explanation, we
However, notice that even when we find data that points to design, such as irreducible complexity, Darwinism is not considered falsified or challenged. In fact, we argue that nothing evolutionists find would be considered enough to falsify evolution, because Darwinism isn’t just another falsifiable hypothesis that’s made its way to the core; rather, it is a presupposed, foundational paradigm that is used to interpret the actual facts.value the authority of an infallible, direct observer over inferential
explanations that start out by arbitrarily decreeing that a designer is “less
probable” (ruling out supernatural explanations).

To this, I agree your religious beliefs do have an affect on how you look at science and scientific discoveries. However not to the extent that creationists would suppose, while your religious beliefs or lack thereof give you different philosophical perspectives on different discoveries and the nature of science, it does not and should not cause you to rewrite science and force-fit it into your religious views which is exactly what creationists are doing. While I agree that arbitrarily assuming there is not designer is fallacious, I don't think we should then attribute the origin of everything to direct creation of the deity without good solid evidence, otherwise it is not science.

After describing Eugenie Scotts illustration of core, frontier, and frings ideas of science the creationist author responds;

However, notice that even when we find data that points to design, such as
irreducible complexity, Darwinism is not considered falsified or challenged. In
fact, we argue that nothing evolutionists find would be considered enough to
falsify evolution, because Darwinism isn’t just another falsifiable hypothesis
that’s made its way to the core; rather, it is a presupposed, foundational
paradigm that is used to interpret the actual facts.

That is just the problem, Irreducible Complexity is not evidence of design so by simple logic evolution has not been challenged by IC therefore it has not been falsified, and even if IC did challenge a completely naturalistic outlook on natural history it would not disprove evolution. This doesn't prove that Design has been rejected for philosophical reasons by the scientific community it simply proves the obvious fact that IC has failed to disprove it, evolution is easy to disprove also; just find evidence of human fossils in the Triassic period and evolution is dead. Now it should also be pointed out that in a sense the creationists are right; facts have to be interpreted but there is only one correct interpretation and young earth creationism is not it.

Now onto whether or not evolution (or darwinism as they call it) is a paradigm;

One might suggest that, even if Darwinism is a paradigm rather than a simple
hypothesis, the evidence would still help scientists choose between competing
paradigms (as though they were competing explanatory hypotheses). But facts
don’t speak for themselves; they must be interpreted through a paradigm.
Interpreting facts to prove a paradigm is thus ultimately an exercise in
circular logic. Furthermore, since the only paradigms that challenge Darwinism
are design-based, there is effectively only one paradigm to chose from for those
like Scott who reject that science can discover intentional design.

Although this is true it does not help creationists since evolution is not a paradigm but a testable hypothesis which has passed the test of time. Now on Methodological Naturalism (which is what creationists really mean when they say "Darwinism"), Methodological Naturalism was developed many Christian philosophers (among them being Francis Bacon) who understood that uniformity was the key foundation of science. The supernatural was not to be denied or denigrated but when it came to the natural world the supernatural would be left out since they were dealing with the way God usually upheld his creation (natural forces) rather then the way God upheld his creation only in very special moments (supernatural forces) so the supernatural is left out of the equation when it comes to science. This is wise because capricious supernatural explanations will not give us a better understanding of the natural world. Now it is true that some people will not accept supernatural explanations of any kind (even theists such as Kenneth Miller), if the evidence points toward a deliberate supernatural act (actual evidence not just a God-of-the-gaps argument) I will accept it. I have no philosophical reason to reject design, however the current Intelligent Design movement is disappointingly lacking in evidence for their theory, and that is in a nutshell the reason I am a Christian who believes in Evolution. As a result I am not convinced that anyone, Christians in particular should be so eager to support Intelligent Design for its potential apologetic uses.

In the end it is up the reader to decide which one is true, evolution is a testable hypothesis which has been proven, and if you believe I am wrong don't just sit there, argue with me and tell me why I am wrong, you might even change my mind who knows.

A Review of Answers In Genesis' review of Eugenie Scotts talk on science and faith

2008-11-28T20:03:00.001-08:00

Excuse the incredibly long name but there isn't really any other way to phrase it.

Anyway I was just reading a recent article on the AiG website about a talk Eugenie Scott gave back in September (yes it took them that long to get to it, but I can see why, they are probably quite busy). It is basically a discussion about how science and religion mix. Now since I am a theist and Eugenie is not I will probably find myself agreeing with a lot of things the creationists are saying from a philosophical standpoint yet rejecting many of their conclusions (example, I agree that there is a God who created the universe and revealed himself to mankind through a book, however I disagree that this means he couldn't have used natural processes to create the universe).

To begin, she points out that there are three ways of gaining knowledge; personal experience (intuition internal knowledge etc.), Authority (a book such as the bible, an experienced individual in a particular field etc.), and science which she describes as a limited way of knowing the world which through natural processes alone. She also points out that science is limited in the sense that it can only know what can be observed and tested. I agree with most of what she is saying, although if evidence of something outside the natural world (say, God) could be gleaned then it would probably be accepted as scientific.

Next she goes onto the creationist argument that you cannot know anything about something if it happened in the past because there were no witnesses. Eugenie uses a humorous example of finding on a road, cow dung with a road stripe painted over it, and then humorously asks the audience if we would not be able to figure out what happened because it happened in the past. She goes onto state that we could figure out what happened through seeing a logical sequence (cow comes and defecates on a road stripe, the road maintenance crew comes to paint fresh stripes on the road and doesn't clean of the dung but simply paints the line over it).

The creationist argument that we can't figure something out because it happened in the past is indeed a weak argument. And although I agree that an omniscient witness who can't lie is a good witness to have I also believe Creation is a witness from God telling the human race how he created the universe, it is simply logical that God's creation would be just as reliable as his on natural history as his revealed word would be on matters of human history, spirituality and morality.

Now enough babbling, lets get to the creationists' response;

Now, let me make it clear that, unlike Scott’s implication, creationists do
believe inferential explanation is, on the whole, pretty accurate. If you return
home and your dog is out of the cage with trash scattered about, it’s not
unreasonable to conclude, based on past experience and circumstantial evidence
(e.g., teeth marks on garbage, the dog’s dirty snout) that the dog is
responsible. This sort of deduction can be quite reasonable when there are no
observers and can be important even when there are observers—if they’re fallible
(for example, the aforementioned witnesses to a crime).
Likewise, Scott’s
answer to her highway conundrum makes sense based on what we know about the
behavior of cattle, the physics of highway paint striping, and so forth.
But
just as it seems foolish to conclude that inferential explanations are never
right, it also seems foolish to conclude that inferential explanation—especially
about unrepeatable historical events—is just as reliable as directly observing
repeatable, carefully controlled scientific experiments. This is where we get
into the distinction between operational (or observational) science and origins (or
historical) science—a distinction evolutionists fail to recognize, by the
way.
For instance, a dog tearing up garbage isn’t a one-time event; it’s
something that happens more regularly than most people would like, has been
observed many times, and violates no laws of science. We could even set up a
two-way mirror or hidden camera and document Fido’s destruction.

And now for my rebuttal: While it is true that sometimes accurately describing historical events can be difficult it is not impossible. Although we cannot absolutely know how a battle happened we can get a pretty good idea (like from where the enemy attacked, we can tell what era it occured in by the armour of the soldiers, etc.). A dog tearing up garbage isn't a one time event but neither is biological change, and we can actually observe it happening in the same way we can see dogs tearing through garbage. Creationists need to show that these two cases are somehow different; now it is true that we have not actually watched a reptile evolve into a bird but we don't have to. Just like in at a crime scene you look for clues from the site to see what happened, scientists look for any changes of that type in the fossil record which is essentially (not to use a word twice but) a record of earth's history. If we didn't find any evidence of this sort of change whatsoever evolution would have been thrown in the garbage can a long time ago.

Now onto why they think evolution is different;

But as for the differences: first, Darwinian evolution is based on
conjecture about a one-time event that we cannot repeat experimentally; the
“documentation” of the fossil record is actually just an interpretation of unevolving fossils that
presupposes evolution.3 Second, Darwinian evolution violates the law of biogenesis and the second
law of thermodynamics. Third, there are good alternatives to evolution regarding
the origin of life/biodiversity. These differences distinguish the dog-and-trash
and the cattle-and-road-stripe examples from Darwinian evolution.

Well I am sorry to say this creationist is w-r-o-n-g; Darwinian evolution is not based on conjecture and it is based upon an event which we can repeat experimentally, evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics or the law of biogenesis (evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis), and no there are no good alternative explanations. It should also be pointed out that Intelligent Design as a concept is valid, however the current movement which wants to make Intelligent Design a scientific alternative to evolution has failed to make a convincing case. I would like nothing better then for a more theistic framework for biology to appear but until that happens, I will stay with evolution. Next he makes the point that inference is only accurate if the source is accurate. Now this is true, but if data gained through careful examination and experimentation is not a good source of inference then I don't know what is. Creationists deny it but that is indeed how our knowledge of evolution has been gained over the past 150 years.

The last point I am going to address tonight is that God being incapable of lying and omniscient would be a perfectly reliable witness; this is very true but creationists need to remember that creation was also made by God and it was made to give a reliable account of the past, shouldn't we also take the witness of God's creation into account?

I will be making a part two of this tomorrow (I apologize for my laziness in updating this blog, I will attempt to do better next month) but for now, farewell and goodbye.

Glaciers found buried on Mars

2008-11-21T11:23:00.000-08:00

Now this is interesting, evidence of buried glaciers have been found on Mars miles off of cliffs and mountains. This helps explain aprons (gently sloped areas with rock deposits at the base of the slope carried by water) found in that area.

This is of course more evidence of water on Mars and an earthlike martian environment in the distant past.

Ten myths about evolution part 5

2008-11-08T16:57:00.001-08:00

The next myth appears to be that just because you find an ape fossil with human like characteristics doesn't mean its a transitional form. So just because it has all of the appearances of being a transitional form its still not a transitional form? Does that make sense to anybody? Now it is true that some characteristics attributed to apelike ancestors of humans are found in apes today, but this does not automatically mean that that early hominids could not have been ancestors to humans anymore then the fact that mid browns being alive today proves that we did not come from Adam and Eve (mainstream creationists believe that Adam and Eve were mid browns therefore having greater variability).

Top 10 so called myths about evolution part 4

2008-10-31T18:17:00.000-07:00

Well the real 7th top myth (I accidentally labeled the 8th top myth as the seventh sorry about that) about evolution is that ape-human genetic similarities prove evolution.

Well in this case it depends on how you look at it. Creationists are right in pointing out that ape-human similarities don't necessarily prove evolution. But it is not simply the similarities but the pattern of these similarities which make evolution a better explanation. there is no reason not to assume that since humans and apes have the same retroviruses, Pseudogenes, junk DNA, and one of the human chromosomes is a fusion between two chimp chromosomes; they are therefore related. Creationists can rationalize this all by saying that God designed them with similarities, or that God purposely infected apes and humans with the same retroviruses because of some unknown purpose (yes they actually suggest this), and that pseudogenes have a function which has not been discovered yet (to be fair some pseudogenes have actually been found which do have a function). But that still doesn't refute the genetic similarity argument used by evolutionists.

P.S. Wow, this is the first month in which I've made more then seven posts since July; a new record!

P.P.S. Well anyways, good day.

Created Rationalist

Top ten so called myths about evolution part 3

2008-10-25T08:15:00.001-07:00

Now after a rather busy week we get to transitional forms. Then 7th top myth is that there are clear transitional fossils. Well if you creationists could remind paleontologists of that, it would be quite nice. one of the more extraordinary transitional forms is Tiktaalik with phalanges, a neck, and inner ear structures which appear half-way between land animals and fish. Also lets not forget our friends Archaeopterix and Microraptor. Also here are two videos about transitional forms, part 1 and part 2. The guy despite being a professing Christian is an especially rabid anticreationist which some of my creationist associates might find offensive but he does have good information.

Hence transitional forms is another scientific reason to become a theistic evolutionist.

Top 10 so called myths about evolution part 2

2008-10-19T16:26:00.000-07:00

forgive me for being a little slow on this series, my next posts on this series will hopefully be more frequent.

Anyway this one is about homologous structures; the "evolutionist" myth is apparently that it proves evolution. Their counter-argument is that physical or genetic similarities does not prove two organisms are related anymore then the fact that two phones are alike means they are related. One person actually denied that the similar characteristics can also prove common design. I don't think the argument is invalid; it also logically follows that organisms without the the same structures would have greater genetic differences then organisms that do have the same structures and vice verca. The problem with this argument is deciding which similarities are due to common design and which are due to common descent. Mainstream creationists (AiG, ICR, and CMI mainly) think that all species come from larger more diverse kinds, so obviously you would have some organisms which are similar also due to common descent, so two different breeds of dogs being genetically similar due to common descent is not a problem for creationists. But what about say, chimpanzees and humans who are about as similar as two breeds of dogs? A theologically consistent special creationist would have to say that humans were of a different kind then chimpanzees, even though his scientific definition of a kind says otherwise. The question is how far can you go back in animals before you the kind level? If

If this aspect of creationist genetics were correct then should be large gaps in genetic similarity between two species from different kinds. For example; chimpanzees should be more like 90% or even 80% similar, not 98% similar.

My point here is while the common design argument is valid as far as logic goes, but it fails in the fact that the genetic similarities are more consistent with a non-creationist interpretation of the data. As far back as we go back largely unrelated organisms (such as dogs and bears) become more and more genetically similar to the point where they would classify as being in the same creationist kind. Following a creationist interpretation we have to make an arbitrary cut off point which has no other then a weak theological justification for it.

A few tips for creationist tract makers

2008-10-15T22:17:00.000-07:00

Now I really hate to sound like I am putting down other Christians, I'm not and try hard not to; what I am doing is helping out my fellow Christians who happen to be creationists make tracts so they'll look more credible. And one way is to mend their gospel tracts. The gospel tracts I am referring to are the ones directed at mainly atheistic evolutionists. Often they have things in them which would probably cause the audience these Christians are trying to reach to dismiss them as ingorant bible-thumping bumpkins, and that is rarely a good thing. So this is to help out those evangelical tract-makers who want to send high quality tracts to their client churches.

The one I am reviewing is from A.C.T.S. ministries and interestingly enough it is actually much better written then most creation/evolution tracks put out by Way of the Master or Living Waters ministries (Ray Comfort and Kirk Camoren's ministries) but it still has a lot of the things which I find would not impress the average biology student.

Consider the introduction;

"Please don't put this down until you have read it thoroughly. We've taken
the time to share these truths with you and ask that you keep an open mind just
as you did when embracing darwinism

Please understand that all the scientific theories about the origin of
life, as taught in the public school system, have been proven by science,
history and the fossil record to be wrong. Evolution, Big Bang and others just
don't fit.

Please, read on and we believe you will conclude that Mr. Darwin was not a
bad man, but he was very wrong"

Now whats wrong with this introduction? Two things;
1. It calls evolution "darwinism," I know this is a minor point, but most evolutionary apologists do not like this term. Darwinism is a group of ideas and notions not necessarily connected to evolution so it should not be used when referring to evolution. When a creationist says "darwinism" most evolutionists other then myself take that to mean the creationist thinks evolution is some sort of cult which its not (some evolutionists even go as far to think creationists think that they worship Darwin as their deity which unfortionately some creationists do) and the creationist is dismissed as an idiot (yes as rediculous as it sounds many evolutionary apologists do make that big of a deal about it) and being seen as bigger idiots then they are already stereotyped is the last thing creationists need.
2. Never, ever say the Big Bang talks about the origin of life. It does not, it doesn't even talk about the origin of the universe only what happened afterwards (that the universe expanded and stars and galaxies were formed, etc.). Most creationists speak of evolution as an umbrella term referring to a veriaty of naturalistic explanations concerning origins whether cosmological, biological, or geological. Most educated creationists understand that they are studied in different fields and apply to different topics but they use the word "evolution" to refer collectively to naturalistic origins scenarios. However to the evolutionists' ears this sounds like you can't tell the difference between cosmology and biology. And just from the very first few sentences of your tracts you will be dismissed as a scientific ignoramus.

In then next section they talk about transitional forms between humans and apes. The problem with the next section is that the first part is a bit of an argument from personal incredulity (I can't imagine apes evolving into humans because they're to different) you want to watch out for that one. An argument from personal incredulity is basically stating you lack the of the ability to imagine something happens proves it did not happen; it is not a good argument and simply makes you look illogical and at best, unimaginative. If you want to make anymore then a comedic impression on an evolutionist leave those arguments out.

The next is to actually research your arguments before you use them. The second point of the tract consists of them talking about how radiometric dating is false. They simply give a few examples of radiocarbon dating giving off wild results. All the of the stated examples (a freshly killed seal being dated at 1300 years old, a living mollusk being dated at 2300 years old, and a shell on a living seal being dated at 27,000 years old) even if these count they only disprove radiocarbon dating, which only is used to date thins younger then 60,000 years. It does not disprove the accuracy of Potassium-Argon dating, Rubidium-Strontium dating or other methods used to date rocks that are actually millions of years old. Also all the examples can be explain by natural processes (because of more C14 in certain deep waters sea creatures can get more C 14 then usual thus making them look much older then they actually are). I should also add radiocarbon dating has been used to date the dead sea scrolls to have been written before Jesus' time, this means that we know from comparing the dead sea scrolls to modern day bibles that Christians didn't alter the text to make it appear more consistant with the New Testament.

In their third point about the fossil record the conclude by saying most scientists have abandoned Darwin's theories. This is simply not true, and shouldn't be propogated; yes a small number of scientists do oppose Darwin but they make up less then 1% of the scientific community, thats hardly most of the scientific community. If you say this the evolutionist may think you are lying (creationists have a rather nasty stereotypical trate which is lying) and your tract will be ignored.

Final suggestion, at the end of a tract, don't immediately launch into a discussion on the ten commandments and how your going to hell and need to be saved. The evolutionist reader whether atheistic or not will take this as a scare tactic (which is especially bad if you have a really bad tract going along with it) and dismiss you as religiously motivated scaremongers. Instead I would suggest simply ending it with the suggestion of there being a God and that God possibly being the God of the bible, then directing them to a source for more information. It makes you sound less like a cult and more like an evangelist.

Now to A.C.T.S. ministries I'd like to say keep up the good work but try to do a better job with your creation/evolution tracts.

And to Way of the Master; shape up.

Top 10 so called myths about evolution

2008-10-10T22:51:00.001-07:00

This is a response series to the AiG web article series Top 10 myths about evolution. Myth 10 is apparently that computer programs prove evolution.

While it is true that it doesn't necessarily prove anything. Computer simulations however do help to visualize concepts such as natural selection creating new species. What they do prove is that that random mistakes can generate meaningful information. Thus even if it does entail a rigged results thats not the point. The point is that random mistakes can generate order if controlled by natural selection; hence evolution.

It is interesting that the picture they use to illustrate the point depicts the evolutionist program designer as being 100% biased against God. Of course this is not accurate since many evolutionists myself including believe in God and agree with evolution. While I have no philosophical problem with creationism or Intelligent Design I have yet to see evidence of it in nature. As I have said before once I get good evidence I will wholeheartedly become a creationist against all odds.

Religulous; the atheist equivalent of expelled

2008-10-08T22:57:00.000-07:00

Most of those reading this blog have heard of the movie Religulous which came out on October 3. I haven't actually seen the movie so this won't be a comprehensive review. If I do review it, the review will be on my other blog Apologia Physis. This is just a passing comment on Elles's review. Her review was the first positive review I've seen; other reviews I read were from Christian sources so I will admit I am a little biased. But from what I have heard of the video (even from the one positive review) it doesn't seem to anything of substance.

He goes to people who are not equipped to defend their faith in the first place and butchers them on spot. And to prove faith is not reasonable, rather then going to noted religious scholars such as Alister McGrath or religious apologists such as Lee Strobel, Normon Geisler, Josh McDowell or J.P. Holding who deal with these kind of problems with the faith as a profession (although I do disagree with them on certain scientific and theological issues) Maher goes to people who not onlu are unable to answer challenges to the faith but also have misconceptions about it. It is a tragedy how many Christians are unprepared to give a reasonable defense of their faith (I doubt some of my fellow Christians would be able to answer Maher's questions). He also seems to go out of his way to find the nuttiest religious believers possible to make religion look insane.

Also I don't see what his problem is with believing the world is going to end; even most atheists agree that eventually sun will consume the earth and the solar system will be destroyed one day. And that the universe will reach an ultimate fate in the distant future; why isn't Bill Maher laughing at Alan Guth or Carl Sagan? It seems very unfair that he would single out religious believers who believe in an eschatology for ridicule

Also I obviously think that the "grow upor die" theme is just a little harsh.

In summary I think its obvious Maher meant it to be a parody, but in doing so didn't make himself look good.

Is it possible for evolution to inspire faith?

2008-10-03T19:54:00.000-07:00

That is an interesting proposition; it is true that the granduer of evolution can create a religious experience in some people while it creates the opposite feeling in others.

An interesting article discusses this idea of evolution being something which can lead one to God, however being that it comes from Emmergent Village, which is a hub of the Emmerging Church I would take what they say with a grain of salt.

Being a Christian who believes in evolution, I see it as a method of creation which God invented to allow for the emmergence of life and what he wanted, other sentient beings to have a relationship with. Although I do not believe evolution would inevitably lead a man to God anymore then it would inevitably lead a man to atheism, evolution does have religious implications nonetheless.

Science and Presuppositions; Christians who contributed to "evolutionary" science

2008-09-24T23:37:00.000-07:00

Creationists such as Terry Mortension attempt to strengthen the illusion of a worldview difference between secular geology and flood geology as well as secular and young earth astronomy by stating many of the early uniformitarians were deistic and atheistic.

While this is true, not all early long-agers were atheists or deists;

Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) A Swedish mystic and scientist who proposed a form of the Nebular Hypothesis on the origin of the Solar System, although he also studied philosophy, physics, and mechanics; he even drew a sketch for a flying machine. Along with being a rationalist he was also a mystic and claimed to have received visions from God telling him to reform the true Christianity. Although he did hold some heterodox and other downright heretical views about the trinity (Newton did as well, not that holding heterodox views pf the trinity is a good thing of course, it is simply that even though Newton did have unorthodox views he is praised by creationists as a Christian in science), he could nonetheless be described as a Christian, and he could also be described as uniformitarian in his thinking towards natural history. He obviously had a very strong belief in the bible and that did not stop him from being a long age astronomer.

Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) An influential German enlightenment thinker; most of his works are on philosophy although he did develop the Nebular Hypothesis which gave a naturalistic for the origin of the Solar System. Although most of his scientific work was in astronomy he did write on the history of the earth as well.

More recent scientists include who contributed to the more controversial parts of secular science include Roman Catholic Georges Lemaitre who developed the Big Bang theory, (this is interesting being that many creationists call the Big Bang an atheistic idea when in fact it sprang from the mind of a clergymen!) Jesuit scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who contributed to the field of evolutionary biology (although his theology was in the stratosphere), and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky.

These are just two 18th century uniformitarians who were indeed Christian theists, many Christian Geologists and Astronomers who believed in an old earth came later in the 19th century when more evidence for such ideas had come. Interestingly enough creationists who were contemporaries of Darwin were often old earthers, among them being Paleontologist Sir Richard Owen and the Theologian Charles Hodge. It is simply not true that all supporters of an old earth had deistic or atheistic philosophies, There were differing views on both sides in both centuries. Belief in an old earth was not because of compromise with an anti-theistic philosophy it was simply because of the evidence for an old earth.

Global Warming denialists, Creationists, and Answers In Genesis

2008-09-18T22:54:00.000-07:00

Why is it that Christian Creationists always seem to be on the side of the Global Warming denialists?

A debate between Old earth creationists and Young earth creationists

2008-09-14T08:33:00.000-07:00

A few months ago there was a debate between young earth creationists creationists Ken Ham and Jason Lisle and old earth creationist Hugh Ross with professor of the Old Testament Walter Kaiser on the John Ankerberg show; I don't agree with everything Hugh Ross says but I am much closer theologically and scientifically to Hugh Ross' position then Ken Ham's. It is rather interesting, I do not have the time now but I will give my comments on parts of it in later articles. You can see the debate here (it has ten parts so don't expect it to be short).

Please watch and share your opinions.

examining Creation Guys episode 5

2008-09-10T15:08:00.000-07:00

Since I responded to their fourth one already I decided to respond to each in order. This episode has to do with faith and logic. The first topics they talk about is news about someone trying to sneak an intentionally poor paper past Answers Research Journal peer review, and then the question, "who created God?" I don't have much of a problem with their answer to that question although I would definitely not go as far to call it an unintelligent question. Also I am dismayed at their dismissive attitude, they don't even really answer the question even though it is a serious question.

However the next statement borders on infuriating;

Jonathan Samson: "Now a lot of people--there's a lot of Christian theologians out
there--who just don't really care about this kind of stuff."

They don't care!? So pro-science theologians who look for ways in how faith and science mix don't care about the relationship between science and religion? This makes absolutely no sense, they may not say earth was created in six days but they definitely care about the relationship between science and religion, its anti-science theologians who think science and religion are incompatible and one has to be suppressed who don't care.

Eric Hovind: "Yeah they really compromise the whole situation of--science and
God--they assume that if they practice science and when they practice their
faith--their religion, they kind of have to take of their science hat and put on
their God hat"

True there are many people who do think that science and religion occupy separate zones in the brain and that one somehow suppresses the other. This is not the view of pro-science theologians but more commonly the view of theologians opposed to science because of their off the wall interpretation of the bible. Most theologians he is talking about see science and theology as equivalent and complementary ways of discovering truth.

They go on to say that many Christians feel that if we simply sacrifice a literal interpretation of the bible evolution and Christianity are compatible, while this is true there are many Christians (progressive creationists including) who do not see their acceptance of modern science as contradictory to a literal interpretation of the bible; Just a young earth one. I am Christian and I do not see any problem with accepting evolution. Then he goes onto mention Hugh Ross as if he were a Christian who didn't take the bible literally and believed in evolution. This is ridiculous Hugh Ross does take the bible literally, however he uses an alternate literal interpretation (the day-age interpretation) that does not lead you to the conclusion that the days of genesis were ordinary days, he is still a staunch anti-evolutionist, he is hardly a poster boy for liberal theology. Eric Hovind Continues;

"Dude that is a question that comes up isn't it! 'why can't you just compromise and give into the Big Bang thing?' 'Why are you so dogmatic on this?'"

That is the question isn't it? To my fellow Christians: Frankly I don't care what position you take on Genesis whether your a young earth creationist or progressive creationist or theistic evolutionist like myself. I'm not going to try to deconvert you. And I will give you a chance to defend your position both scientifically and theologically, and I Will tell you only criticize your beliefs if you bring the subject of creation-vs evolution up and you want to debate. And I will tell you why I think your wrong, and if you are spreading misinformation I know it is my Christian duty to stop you. The purpose of this blog is to defend evolution both from a theological and scientific perspective not to attack yours. Also I'm not hard to convince show me that evolution is wrong and that the Big Bang and the extreme age of the earth are a joke and I will wholeheartedly accept creationism. Until then I will remain with my position. As for young earth creationists they will never be convinced that their beliefs are wrong because their interpretation of the bible will not allow it. Leaving a young earth interpretation for a better one would be compromise to them as Jonathan is about to confirm:

"It doesn't make it right, that's like saying, Eric your married, why won't you cheat on your wife as so many husbands have? Your not supposed too! [that's why]"

Jonathan Samson has made it clear that he is not going to change his interpretation of the bible because he sees it as compromising the authority of the bible. He see's it in the same light as cheating on ones wife. He will never change his mind from a scientific perspective and will continue to spread Hovind-style misinformation. What both pro-science Christians and non-Christians need to realize is that the creation-evolution controversy is theological in nature and should be addressed as such. As for anti-creationists who are also anti-religious it must be remembered that creationists are motivated to oppose evolution because the leading anti-religious crusaders have made evolution an argument against the existence of God. If we disassociated evolution from atheism and theism the debate would be over.

Back online

2008-09-09T20:56:00.000-07:00

I have not been posting for the past couple of days because my internet connection was shaky, I'll be writing a post on the "Creationguys" tommarrow, Tonight I am too tired, goodnight.

evolution, capitalism, and communism

2008-09-05T17:59:00.000-07:00

One interesting accusation of evolution is that it leads to communism and socialism, (national socialism in particular). It is a common claim by creationists to charge evolution with the foundation of Nazism, communism, socialism, fascism, and many other ideologies which are fundamentally socialistic.

Of course knowing that many claim evolution is the foundation of socialism and communism is rather useless if you don't know what any of those are. Now since it is usually Marxist communism which is usually branded as an "evolutionist ideology" I will look at communism and Nazism.

Communism is essentially the idea of a classless egalitarian society where nothing is owned by a single individual but everything is owned by the society at large, also in communism no one is wealthier then another, everyone is part of the working class. In communism you whether you are a plumber or a rocket scientist you get the same amount in return, because of this, you cannot get ahead of anyone else in a communist society, you will either starve or be in the working class but there is no very rich, just the very poor.

Communism sounds wonderful on paper but it is fundamentally flawed in practice due to the fact that it assumes that human nature is basically good and altruistic; when it is clearly not. Socialism a less extreme form, also envisions a society where there is limited private ownership and almost everything is owned by the state. The difference being that most socialist countries were democracies while most communist nations have been ruled by dictators; plus the fact that in communism the wealthy class is overthrown and replaced by the working class while socialism simply has the government taking over every area of life.

Now Capitalism is the virtual antithesis of communism and socialism; in capitalism private ownership is very important, everyone has to work; the means of production (meaning what you need to do your job and the material you are working on) is owned by private investors, and the economy is built on a free market system. Essentially, how well you work to earn money determines which class you will be in (lower, middle, or upper). What you receive depends on how much and how well you work. Capitalism shows our basic biological and psychological need to get ahead and compete with others. All in all, capitalism is superior to communism in that it is more consistent with human nature then communism.

Now in review, which one better fits the evolutionary theory? the basic mechanism of evolution is natural selection. Those who better adapt to their environment are more likely to live to produce offspring to carry on their lineage. Its all about who is the strongest and most productive. Compared to communism, evolution is actually quite different. If evolution really was the foundation of communism. Nothing would ever go extinct, and all organisms would be get the food they need. And the ones to go extinct would be the most successful, the most productive organisms would be eradicated to make way for the more humble creatures. In actuality it is quite obvious that capitalism reflects evolution much more then communism. capitalism like evolution demands that only the best and the most productive reach the top, private owners competing with one and other, very similar to the biological theory of evolution. It is simply libel to blame evolution for communism and fascism and other beliefs, it is shameful for Christians to resort to such tactics.

Bogosity episode 2; creationism

2008-08-30T09:16:00.000-07:00

Bogosity is a show similar to mythbusters. Which looks at fraudulant claims and debunks them (but with a little more tenacity then mythbusters).

The second episode deals with creationism. Although what it deals with largely is what I call hovindian or folk creationism. Mainly the scientifically and intellectually derelict creationism or Ray Comfort, Kirk Camoren, and Kent Hovind. This video would have little affect on mainstream creationists but I think it would work with hovind fans, the problem is that he is rather brash in his dealings nonetheless.

Bogosity episode 2 part 1

part 2

part 3

Enjoy.

The Missing Universe Museum's missing brain

2008-08-26T12:54:00.001-07:00

I was on a creationist site called the missing universe museum yesterday, it's a typical creationist site, with ordinary strawman arguments but what really exposes the site is this quoted statement;

If you don't believe God created all living things, male and female, in 6
days.... How many millions of years was it between the first male and the
first
female?

This shows that author of this site needs to retake biology 101, its called asexual reproduction, sex evolved later. I am sure that most creationists I know would laugh along with me at this statement.

A larger part of the article which sentence is found in is;

Sex is a great problem for Evolution! Per evolution, all living things had a
common ancestor. If this is true, every living thing should be sexually
compatible and able to produce fertile offspring! That's because if any new
specie did come about by mutation, it would have to mate with its parent specie.
Yet, none of the major kinds of life can be crossed to produce a fertile
offspring!
The reproductive system is a faithful reproducer of its parent
kind. You never see an elephant giving birth to a horse or anything other
than an elephant. When there is an error in reproduction, it is almost
always harmful or at best neutral. Any mutation would have to be included
in the genes in order to be passed on to future generations.

This paragraph only further exposes the site as scientifically ignorant and untrustworthy. Now we see that not only is the author ignorant of asexual reproduction but a has common misunderstanding of how evolution works. An elephant with fly wings would be a problem for evolution to explain and therefore evidence against evolution. Also there are many examples of positive mutations, one example can be found here.

The entire site is pretty wacky, go ahead and look at it although it should probably come with a warning sticker.

Note to Christians: The general intellectual bankruptcy across creationism should be a warning sign to my fellow Christians, God would definitely not use charlatans to spread the message of the gospel. I urge my fellow Christians who are young earth creationists to reconsider their position. The young earth movement is not scientifically or theologically sound and should not be supported. There are many places you can go to get both theological and scientific information information which contradicts young earth claims; two places in particular are Answers In Creation, an old earth creationist organization which counters many young earth claims about geology and theology. And Talk Origins which has a wealth of information on evolution (don't forget to look at the FAQ), happy reading and God bless.

Eric Hovind's attempt to explain away the fused chromosomes

2008-08-22T18:16:00.000-07:00

You all know the argument for evolution from the fused chromosomes, for those who don't; I wrote about it in an earlier post, I'll explain it briefly here for conveniance; apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46, and one thing is that if we don't find an explanation for this evolution is in trouble. What would have had to have happened is that two of the chromosomes fused into one large chromosome, and interestingly enough our chromosome number 2 is resembles to ape chromosomes which fused. What a coincidence!

This is a little difficult for creationists to explain away although they have found a way, AiG has written an article in response to the argument by Kenneth Miller. This version of the argument is from a video by Eric Hovind and Jonathan Samson, Samson gives the argument;

So it we strip away the bias and just look at the facts (as everyone should),
the facts are; yes it seems like humans have experienced fusion in the past in
human chromosome number two. But what does that mean? [Hovind cuts in to say
"That's how--there interpreting it--as evidence of evolution"] It means they're
attaching it to their own story.

So essentially he is saying that we are assuming that humans evolved from apes before we look at the evidence and have misinterpreted it as evidence of common descent. Of course is this accurate? Evolution gave a plausible explanation of the missing chromosome and it has turned out to be true. Also since it resembles two ape chromosomes and it predicted by the theory of evolution it doesn't seem too far fetched to say it is evidence of evolution.

This argument is not filled with the usual crass scientific ignorance that usually accompanies Hovind arguments, but it still does not succeed. I think creationists have a point with worldviews affecting how we approach science but they take it to the far flung extant to try to force-fit scientific data into their narrow, flawed interpretation of the bible (which they somewhat arrogantly equate with the biblical position). Christian or non-Christian, one can not accept such an extrapolation.

theistic evolution vs evolutionary creation

2008-08-22T12:38:00.000-07:00

As you know I have myself a theistic evolutionist, its a nice term but it doesn't seem adequate. First of all most Christians who come to my blog do not like the term "evolutionist," and that word is part of theistic evolutionist. Also theistic evolution has the theistic part as an afterthought and the main point being evolution which many Christians would not like because its not putting God first, so I am thinking of using the older term evolutionary creation(ism) to describe my position.

-- Other Christians would like the term better being that it is not saying you are an evolutionist but a creationist

--It does not have the semi-negative connotations that theistic evolution has

--It sounds more like a legitimate interpretation of Genesis, put along side "progressive creation" or "young earth creation" then a vague theological concept which could apply to any religion.

Another term might be scientific creationism but that term has already been hijacked by young earthers.

P.S. I currently have a case of writers block on more serious matters, I'll see what interesting things I can come up with tomorrow.

An update

2008-08-19T17:02:00.000-07:00

You've probably noticed my dropping ff the face of the planet, its because i've been on a very long vacation preceded by a four day sumer camp. I'll be posting another article around thursday, until then farewell and God (science if your username is evolved ratonalist) bless.

Marshal Hall, the Big Bang and the Kabbala

2008-08-05T15:56:00.000-07:00

Modern Geocentrists (whom I staunchly disagree with) believe that the bible teaches that not only is earth 6,00 years old and created in six days but that it is also the center of the universe and that Heliocentrism has it horribly wrong. Marshal Hall one of the leading Geocentrists has a website in which he promotes his geocentric views. He has also written a book called The earth is not moving, which is of about the same intellectual caliber as the site. AiG fellow Dr. Danny Faulkner gave it a rather nasty review.

One of his more curious beliefs is that the Big Bang is based off the kabbala and that not only the Big Bang but heliocentrism and even "Darwinism" are connected to Kabbalistic thinking. Here is one of his more hysterical quotes on the subject;

So, the long and the short of it is this: The whole ball of wax--from the Big
Bang thru Einsteinian Relativity and NASA's Virtual Reality-based, Bible-bashing
evolutionism--stems not from one single scientific fact, but rather, HAS ITS
TAPROOT IN MYSTICAL KABBALISM.

Of course why would he think that the Big Bang is based on Kabbalism? And why would that be a bad thing if it were true? Being that the validity of the Jewish religion is intimately connected to the validity of the Christian religion, it would probably prove the existence of the biblical God. Now for those wondering the Kabbala is;

is a discipline and school of thought discussing the mystical aspect of
Judaism. It is a set of esoteric teachings meant to define the inner meaning of both the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)[emphasis mine] and traditional Rabbinic
literature, as well as to explain the significance of Jewish religious
observances, (taken from wikipedia).

His rabid dislike of the Kabbala seems to be somewhat misplaced. I'm not fan of the Kabbala but I'd hardly call it what he seems to think it is. Of course his silliness runs deeper then that.

Mathematics--utterly abstruse and esoteric--now became the primary instrument
in the hands of Copernicans. The secular science establishment used this new
priesthood of "mathematicians" to soften up the universities first, and then the
churches. Thus was the way prepared for the acceptance of some real
Bible-bashing by the coming "scientific" substitute for the six-day Creation of
man and all else, viz., Darwinism.

Yes, Marshal Hall is declaring war on math, now creationists may think science is subjective but at least they know math is immutable. However Hall takes it to an entirely new level. This is probably because mathematics is rather problematic to geocentrism. another precious quote

a clear and remarkably early connection of heliocentrism and evolutionism in the
mind of this "giant" of the Copernican movement, we can see further along that
he was the secret and unheralded father of the fatuous excesses of gravitation
theory 50 years before the credit went to Newton (another "giant" who mutilated
Scripture and invented special "mathematics" to achieve his ends). More, it is
well established that Kepler believed there were evolved life forms on the
moon.4 How is it then that this precocious EVOLUTIONIST is acclaimed by
Creationists today as a great man of God?!

This quote is too funny for words, the leading supporters of helicoentrism were dedicated Christians and hardcore creationists. Kepler believed there was life on the moon and on many other planets in the solar system but he believed that they had been divinely created by God, it is blaring obvious that Kepler had a vibrant Christian religious faith, an unless he had a time machine he was no evolutionist. Newton by no means mutilated scripture, in fact he was a lot like Hall being a staunch biblical literalist.

The entire site is full of spacious gaps in logic and understanding, modern geocentrists if they become as popular as creationists will be stereotyped even more then creationists as backwards, anti-science hillbillies who can't think for themselves. It would be best if Christianity stayed far away from these types of of people. I will have to make a more thorough examination the the site in a later article for now I will stop here and let the reader speculate at the intellectual level of Modern Geocentrists.

Re-applying the creationist pressuppositionalist argument.

2008-07-29T15:20:00.000-07:00

You all know what Creationist say about presuppositions. That we interpret evidence through our presuppositions and its not about the right evidence but the right presupposition.

Well although I disagree with their version of it I do think they make a point. The point being that religion give you a logical framework from which to base your ideas, including your idea in science. I am not saying that we ought to develop our scientific theories from the bible (Although there are Christians who do that), what I am saying is that a Christian looks at everything in the light of Christian Monotheism. Essentially that there is a God that is rational, non capricious, and uncompromising. He act like this in the social world with moral law so it is not too much of an extrapolation to say he acts the same with natural law; God makes uniform laws for nature to run by has given us the ability to use our reason to understand these laws. According to the bible, we are capable of using our reason to understand nature (Job 12:7-8, Romans 1:20) and we are also told to test everything and not listen to everything we are told (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

So in this view Christianity is in conformity with the philosophy of science and is therefore not a worldview that rejects science but promotes science. I would also say that belief in a rational uniform universe stems from belief in a creator. The reason being that order, uniformity, and complexity emerges from an intelligent mind. Now this does not prove the existence of God but it does tell us that Christian Theistic Beliefs can lead to a worldview which allows for science to thrive. Thus Christianity is a viable framework for science.

In the same way Materialism is also a framework in which you base all your ideas. It also makes assumptions which lead to science, in the same way it could be called a logical framework from which to work science just like Christianity.

What I am saying is I believe there is some sense to this argument, although I maintain that creationists take it somewhat far.

Framework Interpretation

2008-07-27T22:39:00.000-07:00

An interesting interpretation I have heard which is in fact quite common is the framework interpretation. In a nutshell the framework interpretation says the Genesis 1 is a literary device describing different events which took place in a nonsequential way. A major part of the interpretation is a correlation between days 1-3 and days 4-6. For example day one the creation of dark, light and space corresponds with the creation of the stars on day four, the creation of the see and the atmosphere on day two corresponds with the creation of sea creatures and birds (along with other flying things) on day 5. The beauty of this interpretation is that since it does not describe the events in sequence or tells anything about the real time frame of the creation it frees the scientist from biblical constraints to theorize the past without having to correlate scientific data and chronology with a preconceived timescale or process and fearing that data may contradict it. It is further explained here in greater depth. It is defended from theological criticism here as well.

It would be interesting to get some input on this from young earth creationists as well as atheists, lets see if they respond.

Response to AiGbusted

2008-07-25T11:42:00.000-07:00

After writing an article about creationism which may have been taken in as in favor of creationism. AiGbusted responded to it. He stated in his article;

Not sure if any of you know, but Created and Rational wrote up a blog post that
seemed to express strong disagreement with a
post I made about Creationists not being able to trust their own thoughts.

I assure you I did disagree but my disagreement was not strong, I apologize if it came across as a acrimonious disagreement. I was simply stating what creationist actually believed about logic. And it was not addressed directly at AiGbusted but at the argument that it meant a creationist could not trust his own thoughts.

I do not disagree that the young earth creationist approach to science has many flaws. And it is true that the pressupostionalist position is a way to conveniently ignore any evidence. I was simply clarifying that they were not anti-knowledge or anti-thinking. I hope I was able to clear that up.

An analysis of the site "Disprove Darwin in under five minutes"

2008-07-24T09:17:00.000-07:00

Well, Yesterday I got an email from my aunt, we'll call her Dr. Beverly Crusher of the US.S. Enterprise to to protect her anonymity. Anyway she sent a site called Disprove Darwin and on that site there was a particular letter on the site concerning the Age of the Earth. Here is the letter in its entirety;

Dear Wallace , I discovered something you might enjoy…It’s from an article by
Stephen Robbins, Ph.D. He was working on an excavation site in Montana with a
crew from the Discovery Channel. They were uncovering the remains of a giant T
Rex, the largest and most fearsome of all the dinosaurs. But the leg bone was so
heavy; they had to cut it in two so the helicopter could pick it up and carry it
out. That’s when they made a remarkable discovery. Inside the leg bone were
traces of organic tissue! One of the scientists noted that the proteins in the
bone could only stay around for a maximum of 100,000 years.
Very interesting…
How could tissue be in the bone of this T Rex if dinosaurs disappeared over 65
million years ago? It makes you wonder. Dr. Robbins came up with some very good
questions in response to the problem no one is talking about: The issue of
scientific dating and just how old the earth really is.Just in the last 75
years, the age of the earth has been changed several times. Back in 1934 they
were “certain” the world was 1.6 billion years old. Then in 1947 they were
“certain” the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Today the scientists say, “we’re
absolutely positive the earth is 4.6 billion years old.” You’re certain? Are you
really… How can you be certain when your estimates are constantly changing and
your techniques have flaws?While scientists rely on carbon and radiometric
dating, they never question the accuracy of their methods. But they should.
Sometimes mistakes are made. Unfortunately, they’re often ignored or dismissed.
Dr. Robbins points out that mistakes in radiometric dating are common. Here are
just a few:· A Hawaiian lava
flow from 1801 was dated as being 1.2 million years
old.· Volcanic rock from an
eruption of Mt. Etna in 1971 was dated as being 150,000 years
old.· The new lava dome formed
after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980 was dated as being 350, 000 years
old.Amazing. How could these dates be so wrong? Dr. Robbins says radiometric
dating is based on assumptions that can sometimes turn out to be inaccurate. The
method involves looking at naturally occurring radioactive isotopes and how they
decay. But when the atoms around the nucleus are excited – like during a natural
cataclysm – decay is much faster, which makes things look much older when
they’re not. Dr. Robbins points out that these natural disasters are quite
common and can interfere with the accuracy of radiometric dating.
So did
dinosaurs really live millions and millions of years ago? Or did man walk
together with these great beasts side by side? Is the earth really 4.6 billion
years old? Or does the Bible have a better idea?
I’ll reveal more about this
fascinating – and often ignored – topic in future letters.
Stay tuned…
Yours in Faith,
Jeffrey Howard

Well, you can see it gives a lot of the same arguments for young earth that a lot of young earthers give. Let us now examine their "evidences;"

That’s when they made a remarkable discovery. Inside the leg bone were traces of
organic tissue! One of the scientists noted that the proteins in the bone could
only stay around for a maximum of 100,000 years. Very interesting… How could tissue be in the bone of this T Rex if dinosaurs disappeared over 65 million years ago? It makes you wonder

As many of you are aware this argument has been refuted by talk.origins I would not advise any creationist to use this argument As far as things being preserved it actually is possible for something extremely well preserved to last for a very long time. One thing you should realize however is that no DNA was found which would indicate a young age since DNA can't survive the ravages of time over 10,000 years. When creationists find DNA preserved in a dinosaur bone I will switch over to young earth creationism on the spot.

Just in the last 75 years, the age of the earth has been changed several times.
Back in 1934 they were “certain” the world was 1.6 billion years old. Then in
1947 they were “certain” the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Today the
scientists say, “we’re absolutely positive the earth is 4.6 billion years old.”

That is exactly how science works, if we invent a more accurate dating method and get a completely different date, younger or older, then we will change the age as well. There is nothing wrong with this. I'd suggest AiG add this to its list of arguments not to use.

You’re certain? Are you really… How can you be certain when your estimates are
constantly changing and your techniques have flaws?

I'd hardly call it constantly changing consensus on the age of the earth has been largely the same since the 1950s and the invention of the modern dating methods. True there are some problems with the dating methods but it is accurate enough.

While scientists rely on carbon and radiometric dating, they never question the
accuracy of their methods. But they should. Sometimes mistakes are made.
Unfortunately, they’re often ignored or dismissed.

It would seem awfully strange that a discipline built on self-doubt and questioning would commit such an uncritical act as not checking their more important dating measures. They do realize that radiocarbon dating has limits, and is only used to date objects 50,000 years old or younger because it is inaccurate beyond 50,000 years. Radiocarbon dating was used to verify that the Dead Sea Scrolls were made before Jesus' life time and therefore could be used to show that Christians didn't alter the Old Testament to make it agree with the New Testament. So I don't know why you're trying to disprove the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.

Dr. Robbins points out that mistakes in radiometric dating are common. Here
are just a few:
· A Hawaiian lava flow from 1801 was dated as being 1.2 million
years old.
· Volcanic rock from an eruption of Mt. Etna in 1971 was dated
as being 150,000 years old.
· The new lava dome formed after Mount St. Helens erupted in
1980 was dated as being 350, 000 years old.

Look up xenoliths, those mis-datings in particular involved the new formed lava being temporarily aged by fragments of older rock. This is not anomalous.

Amazing. How could these dates be so wrong? Dr. Robbins says radiometric dating
is based on assumptions that can sometimes turn out to be inaccurate.

That's often because its used to date objects which shouldn't really be dated with radiocarbon. Geologists accept there are limits to radiometric dating but that doesn't mean it can't be used.

The method involves looking at naturally occurring radioactive isotopes
and how they decay. But when the atoms around the nucleus are excited – like
during a natural cataclysm – decay is much faster, which makes things look much
older when they’re not.

Maybe, but you still need evidence, and your ability in that area leaves a lot to be desired, these arguments you have given have all been defeated one way or another, you need to find current up to date evidence and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal for all the world to see, not a dark corner of the Internet where you can preach to your fellow young earth creationists.

Stay tuned…

Yours in Faith,

Jeffrey Howard

In kind regards to Christ
Created Rationalist

P.S. the Creationist I was talking to was not my aunt but the creationist who wrote this article,

See my new blog!

2008-07-23T11:48:00.000-07:00

I swill still be using this blog but I've decided to separate my life as a Christian Apologist and Science Apologist by making a new bog largely devoted to Christian apologetics, Apologia Physis the Greek word apologia means to defend and the Greek word physis basically means nature. I will still be defending Christianity in the light of modern science so the word nature should still be in the title. I will still be posting on this blog although it will be largely on defending and promoting science. Apologia Physis will mainly deal with the theological stuff. I'd like to know what you all think of it so, check it out and get back to me.

Rethinking Creationism: Is it possible our presuppostions do affect how we interpret the evidence?

2008-07-20T21:23:00.000-07:00

Do not be alarmed by this question. This is NOT and argument for creationism, I am simply correcting a my mishandling of the AiG position that evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism. I feel I have misunderstood their position and I have caused confusion among others such as AiGbusted And being that no creationist will defend himself I have put it on myself to respond to the criticism since I understand their true position, it still is somewhat flawed but it is not as nutty as they make it appear.

AiG creationist thinkers at least have adopted almost a form of Critical Realism in regards to the past. Nothing can be absolutely proven in relation to the distant past before human presence in the region. Therefore whatever theory you make about the past is not independent of your presuppositions. This is how I have basically explained it, and earlier I criticized it on the grounds that it was an attempt on the part of the creationists to avoid the obvious evidence for evolution. Either way their position appears to have been mishandled by several people such as AiGbusted. It has been interpreted as saying we cannot trust our own thoughts because thoughts. The misunderstanding probably stems from this quote form the AiG article, "Is nature the 67th book of the bible?":

"Many who trust in humans as the highest authority reject the Curse as true history and thus deny its effect on our observations. Some point to the effects of the Curse as proof of “bad design.” For Christians, however, it is foolish to ignore the Curse when considering what nature can “reveal” to us. After all, this would be like someone trusting a funhouse mirror to show them how they really looked. They look into the mirror and see a distorted view but assume that this mirror must be “right.”"

Now at first glance this does seem to say that we cannot trust our senses and this does seem to contradict what creationist have claimed about evolution being anti-science and anti-knowledge since it means our brain is just an assortment of chemicals which evolved over billions of years and can't be trusted. Is this a contradiction made by the author? No, creationists such as Ken Ham say that there is a distinction between what they call "operational" science and "historical" science. Operational science is everyday repeatable science which has been used to build technology and send humans to the moon. Historical Science on the other hand has to do with the distant past and origins which are affected by our presuppositions and is therefore not science in the same sense that operational science is. Furthermore in regards of repeatable, testable, and operational science the senses are very reliable and they believe that science requires "biblical presuppositions". loved and hated Creationist astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle explains:

"he biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion. Furthermore, God is consistent and omnipresent. Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle."

However they say science in relation to the distant past before the existence of humans or at least before written records and such cannot be proven and if any theory is not based of biblical presuppositions it is flawed because it does not take the bible (what they believe to be the foundation of science) into account. Also the fall is used to explain things like mutations, disease, and some instances of bad design so if you follow their logic nature gives a distorted portrayal of God and thus while it is useful (they believe that historical science can work if interpreted through biblical assumptions) it should not be put at the same level as the bible. That is all they are saying, they are not saying thoughts are unreliable.

If one is to respond to creationist claims he must do it with an accurate portrayal of creationist beliefs not a distorted view and that is the purpose of this article, it is not to endorse young earth creationism in any way. It is to correct flawed arguments in the same way AiGers have done already.

Key to ending the creation/evolution controversy

2008-07-19T16:01:00.000-07:00

The creation-evolution controversy has raged for over a century and a half now. And there seems no end in site, it only appears to be getting more ferocious as the years pass, Why is this?

Well one thing might be confusion about why creationists oppose evolution. It is not because of science or any reason related to that. the leading creationists are not morons who can't think straight either, their thinking is crystal clear, and they do have a very important reason to oppose evolution. Well actually two reasons, which both go together, they can be stated simply; doctrine and morality.

It has been stated all over the AiG website what the debate is really about. It is about a theological dispute within the Christian faith. Essentially how do we approach evolution? There are a great many Christians; both scientists, theologians, and laypeople who believe in both God and evolution. Many do not see evolution and religion in conflict. However the problem is that both sides of the extreme (bible-thumping fundamentalists and bible-burning atheists respectively) do see it as in conflict. The main problem for many is death and suffering. Young Earth Creationists at least hold to the belief that there was no death before Adam's sin, and being that the fossil record shows death and suffering long before sin they see this as an obvious problem for Christianity. Atheists such as Albert Einstein and probably Richard Dawkins who agree with the creationists' interpretation of the bible concur with this point.
This problem is a nagging problem for creationists and theistic evolutionists trying to convince creationists to accept modern science.
Is this true, is evolution truly the death knell of Christianity? Well luckily it is not Creationists have not given any proof that there was no animal death before the fall. In fact Psalm 104 seems to indicate there was death in animals before the fall.

Another biblical problem they have with evolution is the existence of Adam. Evolution teaches that humans share common ancestry with great apes so ultimately humans go back to apes not Adam. Creationists believe this is the death knell of Christianity, atheists agree (this particular quote comes from John Stear host of the site No Answers In Genesis):

“If evolution is fundamentally correct, then there was no Adam; no Adam, no fall; no fall, no atonement; no atonement, no reason for Christ to have died on the cross. If Christ died for no reason then he was not divine and Christianity has no basis in fact. Is there really any need for scientific proof in order to debunk Christianity?”

If Adam doesn't exist then yes we do have a problem, I do believe in a literal Adam who is the genetic common ancestor of all people alive today (although some theistic evolutionists don't think he was the genetic common ancestor). Its possible he may have been Mitochondrial Eve's husband. Genetics has traced every human alive to day to a human common ancestor like the bible says. So their fear seems somewhat unfounded. There are many other scientific, theological, and biblical issues which must addressed though.

The second real reason for their rejection of evolution is morality, on their website in the Q&A Morality and Ethics section they quote G.K. Chesterson a 19th century Christian apologist on morality and evolution:

Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.
If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continues to recur: only the supernaturalist has taken a sane view of Nature.’

Basically what they are trying to get at is evolution leaves no basis for morality. Once you remove Creation you can do what ever you want. As shown in this illustration they see evolution as the excuse to throw the bible away and commit all sorts of sins which are at the center of social concerns today:

As you can see here Answers In Genesis state that evolution allows for humans to decide moral truth which is a cardinal belief in humanism and therefore gives way to behaviors which they see as immoral.

Is this true, well their problem is that Creationist are confusing evolution with moral relativism, evolution being a natural process doesn't say anything in regards to morality or ethics or God or atheism for that matter any more then the theory of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. Scientific theories are amoral. What creationists don't understand is that evolution is what you make of it; if you say evolution is God's method of creation and that we should obey the God of the bible that's what evolution is, a creation process. If you decide that evolution is a godless mindless process that has no plan or purpose then that's what is, if you add evolution to biblical Christianity you will get Christian morality, if you combine it with atheism you will get relativistic morality and make whatever you want of evolution. Carl Sagan thought evolution was a benevolent process and he had an adequate moral standard. And there have been atheists who have used evolution the opposite way to do evil as seen from the Christian worldview. Creationists cant seem to tell the difference between Atheism, Humanism, and evolution. which is much cause of their moral view towards evolution.

As stated before, Creationists are not stupid ad they are thinking very clearly. However science is not gong to convince them, there is plenty of science to address their complaint but what needs to be done is that Christians who accept evolution need to stand up to creationists and atheists and address the theological issues between Christianity and evolution. If we can show that Creationist theology is flawed then the creation/evolution controversy will end soon afterwords. Once the religious element of creationism is gone the pseudoscience will die soon afterwords.

Can anyone tell me next time there is a major change in science?

2008-07-15T07:52:00.000-07:00

Ok, imagine this; I go onto AiGbusted's blog, looked at a post he wrote sometime ago and I find a pugnacious response to what I said in the article. This was it;

created rationalist, just why do you claim that there was "some sort of
primordial monotheism" practiced by the first homonids? What evidence do you
have, other than your guess? Exactly what determines if something has a "soul"?
If Homo Erectus had a soul, what about Homo Neanderthalis? Didn't God love them
as much so that's why they died out? I do love just how willfully ignorant
theists can be when it comes to even their attempts to co-opt science into their
beliefs. Look here at an actual modern representation of the human "family
tree", not the expected old and superseded information that theists always use.
Why do you find the idea of a magic man resurrecting himself from death to be
any more easy to believe than oh, a global flood or God creating the earth a few
thousand years ago? None of these has any evidence to support it but you seem to
be sure you can tell the difference better than your creationist fellow
believers. You seem to be quite able to compartmentalize your superstitious
beliefs.

Well the important part about this rambling is the part I put in bold. I wondered what he thought was so dangerous to my assertion that Homo Erectus was Adam's race and why he thought I was being willfully ignorant. Well I looked up the human family tree (look at the above picture to see what it looks like).

I was shocked to find that I had been spreading misinformation about the relationship between homo sapiens sapiens and homo erectus. Sorry I will readjust what I've said to fix that error. At any rate this seems to show one thing about the current opinion on theists. It seems there is a tendency around the science blogs to stereotype theists as ignorant, incompetent idiots, this stereotype is a tragedy and one which must be broken.

a theory of theistic evolution?

2008-07-14T07:21:00.000-07:00

It may seem awkward to start this discussion a immediately after not being present at this blog for several days. However this is a subject worth discussing. It is the origin of man, as many of the readers know there is a debate over whether or not humans share common ancestry with great apes or whether they were created in their present form. Just so you know I favor the former rather then the latter. Today the middle-ground view (theistic evolution) is scorned and disliked by both sides. One atheist (Evolved Rationalist in particular) has even gone as far as to say atheists who tolerate theistic evolution are simply appeasers who are too afraid to confront theistic individuals and criticize their beliefs. On the other end of the spectrum young earth creationists have condemned it as compromise, Philip Johnson a leading ID advocate has gone as far as to call it "theistic naturalism."

I think that some of the criticism is valid, and some of the reasons theistic evolution is looked down on by both sides is probably;
--for one thing Christian theistic evolution at least doesn't appear to have any robust coherent model about the origin of Man which is distinguishable from secular models
--Most theistic evolutionists dismiss genesis 1-11 as a work of poetry and largely disconnect the bible from the real world, this is one reason that it is criticized in evangelical circles. Answers In Genesis is given a lot of criticism of theistic evolution mainly centering on this point.
--What seems to irritate atheists about theistic evolution is that it does not say anything distinct about the natural world which can be tested and falsified or verified. This seems to be a major weakness.
--Many theistic evolutionists today tend to put God on the sidelines essentially surrendering to philosophical naturalism. I am not say we should begin opposing naturalistic explanations like creationist what I mean is that many theistic evolutionists don't use God or the bible for any explanatory power. We (I believe correctly) say God is active in the world and in the evolution of life but theistic evolutionists tend to reject the bible when addressing issues which the bible is relevant, such as the beginning, the origin of Man etc.

Now I am not saying we should begin using the bible in science the same way that creationist do. neither am I saying we should declare a theocracy over science, my point is that we have not done a remarkable good job at connecting the bible to the real world. So I suggest a predictable and falsifiable theistic evolutionary model of how everything is supposed to happen. For example: One thing which theistic evolutionists disagree on is the origin of "spiritually aware" humans. The bible give precious little information about the first humans but one thing which can be said is that its possible that God created an entirely different hominid species physiologically, morphologically, and genetically identical to the former hominid but different in intellectual and moral strengths. I believe the best candidate for Adam would be Homo Erectus the reason for believing so is their use of the Achuelian tool kit which shows understanding of advanced abstract concepts, geometry and symmetry. Now if they truly are the first spiritually aware humans then how does Adam fit in? Well Adam and Eve's children would have spread across the globe and have replaced the previous homo erectus. This probably would have happened early in their history. So we should find a gradual replacement of more primitive tools with more sophisticated tools reminiscent of advanced near-human intellect. Of course this isn't necessarily drastically different from the non-theistic evolutionist view s what would be evidence of this viewpoint. Well obviously discovery of true artwork among Homo erectus as such as drawings and cave paintings, also evidence of a language. These would be the most obvious predictions for future research into the field of paleoanthropology made by theistic evolution. Also there should be a few others, the bible states that at least for a short time before the flood they had the ability to make tents, domestication, and using base metals (Genesis 4:20-22) [although Tubal-cain may have simply been a genius inventing wildly advanced technology in the same way that a 19th century inventor might build a matter/antimatter engine], they also built settlements (Genesis 4:17). So I predict the discovery of comparatively advanced technology in Homo Erectus. However one thing is certain, we can prove that this was only possible before the flood and that after the flood this technology was lost. So it would not be very widespread, so the best we can hope to find is evidence of artwork and religious practice in species Homo Erectus. This is only one example of how we could build a model which makes predictions about human evolution remarkably distinct from those of non-theistic anthropologists. This is only one (slightly unlikely) model but it might work.

I believe that if we approached scientific topics relevant to the bible and the Christian faith in that manner we would get more respect from both creationists and atheists.

After a week I am back

2008-07-13T07:31:00.000-07:00

Now it does seem strange that I said I would blog more right before a 9 day freeze in blogging. I am blogging from my uncle's computer in Bayfield Colorado. Its been a while since I've been the blog but I haven't forgotten about it. Soon I'll be blogging up a storm mostly to do with science, politics, and theology as usual.

Onward scientifically-minded Christian soldiers!

P.S. Wow! I used the word blogging 3 times in a 9 line post!

Is Nature's record unreliable because we live in a fallen world?

2008-07-04T16:57:00.000-07:00

The young earth creationist ministry Answers In Genesis has a track record of deriding modern science and the theology which concures with modern science. Now there are many Christians who say that I am overly harsh with AiGers and other creationists, of course that only goes to show that they do not know what "harsh" means; you think I'm harsh? Check out this (theistic evolutionist) guy I rest my case.

Anyway one of their most recent articles Are we missing something? in which they attempt to say nature's record is unreliable since Man is fallen.

When people look to nature to reveal truth, they are falling into the same
speculation trap as in describing the house in the field. No matter how
imaginative or intelligent they are, they can never know exactly what happened
in history without trustworthy eyewitness accounts.
Those who promote nature
as a missing aspect of God’s revelation (the so-called “67th book of the Bible”)
need to understand two crucial fallacies with this idea: first, nature is
cursed; second, our observations of nature are not independent from our
presuppositions. When we examine these problems, we see that nature should never
be put on the same level as the Bible.

Essentially this is one of the most major misconceptions floating around the young earth community that we can not know the past. I have already pointed out the problems with this view. Now to the proposition that our trust in nature's account are fallacious; first of all the bible does not say nature is cursed, the only creature positively under the influence of the curse is Man himself. Secondly the scientific method works around this problem, I'll get to this in a moment.

Many who trust in humans as the highest authority reject the Curse as true
history and thus deny its effect on our observations. Some point to the effects
of the
Curse as proof of “bad design.” For Christians, however, it is foolish to
ignore the Curse when considering what nature can “reveal” to us. After all,
this would be like someone trusting a funhouse mirror to show them how they
really looked. They look into the mirror and see a distorted view but assume
that this mirror must be “right.”
Likewise, while nature does reflect some of
God’s qualities (Romans 1:20), if we trusted the nature we see now to show who
God is, we would see the death, violence, and plant and animal defense and
predatory structures and imagine God as reveling in death and destruction.

I for one do not deny the curse, however I take it as being less universal then AiGers take it to be. I did affect Man's reasoning powers and there is no doubt we humans live in a fallen world and that there definitely is something wrong with creation.,however this does not mean that nature is therefore unreliable. Science can evade the difficulties of the fallen human intellect because;

1. Science is not determined by human opinion but by the facts

2. science is self-correcting and any error will be eventually mended because of the scientific process.

3. Being that God wrote the record of nature it can never truly contradict God's word therefore nature should be reliable since it is inspired by God and God is incapable of lying.

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t study nature. After all, “nature” is
everything around us, and God gave it to humanity so that we could look into the
universe around us and see His glory. However, nature is only as impartial as
the viewer. Although nature itself does not lead to false conclusions about the
past, people who look at nature can be misled by their own mistaken
presuppositions. Those who look to nature as an objective source of God’s
revelation (or an objective source of scientific truth) are ultimately looking,
instead, at their own preconceptions—even if they don’t realize they have them.

This is how science works and another reason why we as Christians have nothing to fear from science; if the current take on the physical record contradicts the bible it will eventually shift back because truth cannot contradict truth.
For the last part I will give comments on in a slightly more choppy fashion.

Ultimately, God’s Word reveals the reason that we should never consider nature
as our sole source of knowledge or as an extra book of the Bible:
The grass
withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24–25)

True, but he also says "Speak to the rocks and they shall teach you" (Job 12:7-8). The aforementioned passage is most likely referring to God's eternality, not necessarily nature's record.

When the Bible mentions nature and the Word together, we find that only one
of them is permanent and foundational for knowing and fulfilling His will.
Nature—this universe—will pass away and be rolled up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4), but God’s Word will endure.

Of course I agree, it is the bible (special revelation) which give us what is important in an eternal sense, everything else only matters in a finite and limited scope.

If we depend on nature to reveal the truth, and especially if we reinterpret
God’s Words based on our stories and interpretations of nature, we will be
building our house on a foundation of sand. By contrasting the transience of
nature with the constancy of His Word, God shows us that His Word alone is
sufficient revelation—and in fact, the only
logical framework—from which we can understand and appreciate the universe
around us.

I agree the bible is a logical framework for science but there is no reason to restrict ourselves to an outdated interpretation of the bible. In science the facts speak for themselves, and the facts say; earth is 4.55 billion years old, man shares common ancestry with great apes, and that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. And biblical theology says; there is no reason for the curse to be extended beyond Mankind or for the days of creation to be interpreted as ordinary days.
Young Earth Creationism is unnecessary from both a scientific and theological perspective so why are we still supporting it in the year 2008?

Now if you object to this I am not closed to discussion, if it turns out that I am horribly wrong then I will gladly change my position on Genesis but for now I remain unconvinced.

By the way I must apologize for my lull in the number of posts I make. I have been really busy and I have been putting of updating this blog for a while, I'll try to be more persistant next time, sorry.

Obey the scriptures; do science and be skeptical!

2008-07-03T11:34:00.000-07:00

You already know that I have called myself a Christian skeptic partially based on Thessalonians 5:21. I am looking for more references to being skeptical in the bible so if some of you could help me that would be great (and yes that includes any creationists on this blog). Also I think that the bible gives us incentive for science for example the creation mandate (Genesis 1:28) orders us to subdue the earth and use our available resources to improve humanity. Job 12:7-8 tells us to follow the evidence. So Christians should be skeptical and do science because the bible says so.

Now of course you know what this means, be rational, like the Bereans, test everything and make sure it is true. Even if it turns out the evidence really points towards a 6,000 year old earth follow the evidence to the conclusion, and you will be most likely to find truth.

Good luck.

for the 4137891st time Answers In Genesis has endangered its credibility

2008-06-30T15:48:00.000-07:00

I hate to sound somewhat overly anti-AiG here, I am not against AiG, really I only disagree some parts of what they say; and the areas in which they reside include science, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of religion, theology, biblical interpretation, and history. Ok so I basically disagree on at least one point on everything. Moving on, as you can guess Answers In Genesis has reviewed the movie expelled. At the same time they have supported much of the misinformation in the film. They did not even catch many of the falsehoods, this is quite disturbing, and it is a fatal blow to the credibility of Answers In Genesis (not that AiG supporting a young earth interpretation of the bible was bad enough, the intellectual world is not especially kind to those ideas I am afraid). Either the author of this review didn't do his homework or AiG is just like Expelled; deceitful. I remember Jesus saying something about that, hopefully this is not the case though, I have too much faith in human nature to believe that.

Christianity's fate at the hand of fundamentalists

2008-06-29T22:45:00.000-07:00

I recently read a blogpost on the blog Jesus loves Everything; it was posted on October 10, 2005, at the time it was posted I was a space/astronomy creationist geek blissfully unaware of the enormity of the creation/evolution wars. Now even though it is archaic I am going to respond to it. The article claims science is evil and the cause of sexual immorality (now it is probably a parody but I'm board so I am going to refute it). Being a Christian who loves science, lets just see what this guy has to say.

I ask you, when you look around our towns and our cities, when you watch tv and
go to movies, what do you see? Pornography! It's everywhere, infesting our
public squares with scantily clad, whore-like Jezebells that tempt our sons and
daughters into sin.

Yes, its because society is obsessed with sex among other things.

IT didn't used to be this way. Our children weren't robbed of their innocence by
slickly (and slimly)produced television shows, music videos, and advertisements
beating down on them as surely as the sun beats down on sunbathers at the beach.
Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson -- they gyrate and flaunt their breasts,
practically throwing them in our faces so that we can't even look away. And this
dilemma -- this tragedy -- is even manifesting itself in our childrens' physical
appearance, as girls are growing breasts and menstruating at younger and younger
ages.

Alright, subtracting the other parts what does this guy mean by girls growing breasts at younger ages? Does Nathaniel realize that throughout history girls have begun to sexually mature and menstruate in their early teens?

What happened? How did we go from a small town country, where we waived to each
other on the street, worshipped together, and didn't have to worry about our
children being led into sin, into this cesspool? I think I've found the answer,
and it lays in our daughters' breasts. Science. It's science that's been
mutating our children, as we pump hormones and chemicals into our cattle and
poison the nation's food supply. And it's science that brought us television and
movies to warp our children's' minds with pornography, science that has created
a veritable bazaar of abortion to feed the Godless' appetite for stem cells. And
it will be science that creates the first cloned human being. Science,
therefore, is evil.

Science isn't the reason that there is so much immorality in the world. Humans have been given the freedom to use science either for good purposes such as finding ways to end world hunger, care for the environment, and cure cancer. Or to use it for their own selfish ends, it is not science that is the problem it is people that is the problem. And poisoning the food supply? What are you babbling about?

So what do we do? Surely this nation can't live without science, doubters will
undoubtedly say. But we can. Look at the state of America's economy today. We've
been outsourcing so many jobs to India and China, why wouldn't it be possible to
give them all of our science jobs. They are heathens and will always be
heathens, so let them be tempted by the sin that will surely follow.

Greeaat!!!! Lets not even try, lets just give up our position as one of the leading scientific nations in the world to become a third world country; famine, disease, and all! Welcome to Redneckistan!!!!! With people like you around, our nation and my religion is in deep trouble. Once we give up our economy is finished, when the next generation comes to take our place we will fall behind the rest of the world because they will not have adequate education. the United States will become just like Saudi Arabia, the scientific backwaters. Also the military will become less advanced with time because there will be no scientists to develop new technologies or sustain old ones; without science, America is doomed.

Instead of biotechnology and computer science, we can focus on Jesus Loves
Everything Superstores, reforming our economy so it's better prepared for the
end times.

And how are the two mutually exclusive? Haven't you ever read Genesis, if you have I think you need to review the creation mandate. God also tells us not to be like an ox and lack understanding like you clearly do.

Then we will no longer need to teach science in schools, thus depriving
our children of the seeds of doubt in the power of our Lord, that He created the
world in six days, and that we did not descend from apes.

You are pathetic, science is good, and compatible with the bible. You can believe in both, also we only share a common ancestor with apes.

Instead of science, our children can be taught the Bible and how to respect
authority; and when they get a little older, we can add instruction on how to be
a better Jesus Loves Everything Superstore Employee, so that when they are ready
to be sent off to work, they will be the best employees the world has ever seen.

The bible is for sunday school and comparative religion, science is for the science classroom, I believe in both the bible and science and I respect authority. And not every citizen of the United States can work in your stupid superstore (Note: this article may be in fact a parody considering he wants them to work at his store, or he could in fact be describing the church).

If Christians do not embrace science and reason, this is what shall become of us, irrational anti-science, cave-dwelling blockheads. We must not let this happen, God gave us brains for a reason, it is about time we used them and took science back. Nathaniel, the one who wrote the article is causing far more damage to his own religion then he thinks.

Unfortunatley wrong answers with Ken Ham

2008-06-26T21:45:00.000-07:00

After hearing about how harsh I am towards my fellow believers who believe in a young earth i decided to be a little nicer to young earth creationists. Now I just have to respond to this message by Ken Ham, where he states "living fossils" are a problem for evolution because a certain type of fish (the coelacanth to be precise) is still around which has been around for the past 400 million years. In answer to that, its not really one species of fish (it would be pretty incredible for a single species to survive 400 million years), it is an order of fish, and currently there are only two species remaining and they are critically endangered. It is not entirely unlikely that an order an animals could survive for so long, crocodillians have been around since dinosaurs.

Now one interesting thing he said is that some kids ask him if he's a living fossil, now what I am about to say is terrible but I am going to say and I apologize to my creationist audience in advance; because when he says he's a living fossil, he does look like our pre-human ancestors, and he sometimes acts as smart as them too so it would appear Ken Ham is a living fossil!

Anyway, that concludes my answer to Ken's answer, And Mr. Ham if you are reading this please take it in good humor (I have attempted to make this criticism as constructive as possible).

Both a skeptic and a Christian

2008-06-25T11:04:00.000-07:00

I find myself in a very unique position, I am both religious and skeptical. Well obviously I am not a hardcore skeptic however I do disbelieve many things my family and people doesn't necessarily disbelieve, now I am not saying everyone I know takes the idea seriously, many of them don't but I do know people personally who do take these ideas seriously;

Bermuda Triangle paranormal activity
9/11 conspiracy theory
Ghosts
Apollo moon hoax
New World Order Conspiracy
UFOs are of Satan
Astrology.

Members of my family take the Bermuda Triangle, Apollo moon hoax, and of course creationism (the concept not the geographic location) seriously. Their acceptance of Creationism is fine but the fact is that their creationism is Hovindian makes it out on the far fringe of creationism. It appears that I come from a very different school of thought then they do, the school of skepticism, and yet I am a believer in spirituality and the supernatural, so therefore I am not a hardcore skeptic. But I am skeptical enough to get by rationally. I have found at least one person who has a similar situation.

Now you may decide if what it means to be a skeptic and a Christian, if you are one are you;

(a) reasonable

(b) inconsistent

(c) or completely consistent with biblical teachings?

Well I think that I am consistent with the bible, however you may make your own opinions.

Ray Comfort: Adequate evangelist, lousy logician, scientist, philosopher, theologian, and even theoretician

2008-06-23T14:29:00.000-07:00

You all remember Ray Comfort. Well on his blog he has written another not-all the way-thought-through post on his blog. Now before I explain the parts which I thought were dumb I will fist clarify that I think as far as evangelism goes, Ray is rather gifted, and that he's doing a good job.

However there are several problems which I cannot ignore in his ministry, one being his flawed attack on the evolutionary theory, and weak and the fact that his method of evangelism (appeal to fear) only really works on those who have already accepted the faith. Yet his ministry is addressed towards atheists.

Now lets analyze his blogpost, not everything he says is flawed but some of it I must address for the sake of his ministry's credibility. Here is the first question he answers;

Q1: Do you believe in microevolution? OF COURSE. WE SEE EVIDENCE OF IT ALL
AROUND US.

Well, good to know you believe in microevolution Ray, however I am not sure if you know the only distinction between macro and micro evolution is time.

Q2: Do you believe in natural selection? THAT DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION.
GOD HAS CREATED A SYSTEM IN NATURE WHERE THE STRONGEST SURVIVE. THE LION EATS
THE LAMB

Well, I am we agree on at least one point in science I have no problem with this part.

Q3: Do you think that one can be both a Christian and an evolutionist? A
NEW
CHRISTIAN, YES. BUT AS HE OR SHE READS AND BELIEVES THE SCRIPTURES, HE (OR
SHE) WILL SEE THAT THE TWO ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE.

Tell that the Francis Collins, many Christian converts believe in theistic evolution and reject his brand of creationism

Q4: Do you believe that the book of Genesis calls for a literal interpretation?
DEFINITELY. JESUS LITERALLY BELIEVED IT, SO DID THE APOSTLE PAUL.

I believe he is referring to the time when Jesus said to the pharisees, "Don't you remember that man was created in the beginning of creation male and female?" This seems compelling but on the other hand it seems to contradict young earth creationism, since even they say that it was at the end of creation that Adam and Eve were created, this probably not what Jesus is referring to. As I remember Paul said he believed in the flood, but I don't remember him saying he believed in a six day creation, in other words; [Scriptural citation needed]

Q5: Do you believe that the earth was created in 6,000 years? IT TOOK SIX DAYS.
HOWEVER, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW OLD THE EARTH IS.

This one is the first of-the-wall statement made, first of all the creation did not necessarily take six days, and he may not know but most creationists believe it is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old and most old earth creationists/theistic evolutionists and secular scientists understand it to be 4.55 billion years old.

Questions 6 through 9 aren't necessarily bad, I can accept them but question 12 I have several comments;

Q12: In one sentence what does it mean to you to "prove" something? I DON'T THINK HUMAN BEINGS CAN PROVE ANYTHING ABSOLUTELY. GOD, HOWEVER, CAN ABSOLUTELY PROVE HIMSELF TO THOSE WHO REPENT AND TRUST HIM.

Now it is true that we can never truly know anything, but we can to an extent know something. Science cannot absolutely prove something but it can provide enough evidence that it is almost beyond a shadow of a doubt true.

Some of the questions were good, however a few were a bit insufficient, hopefully he will be able to do better next time. Way of the Master could become a good organization but first they need to get all that anti-intellectualism out of their system. God created the human mind and he gave us good reasoning powers to understand him, there is no reason that we should oppose science.

ASA answers Expelled

2008-06-21T10:08:00.000-07:00

This is an essay from the American Scientific Affiliation on the anti-evolutionist movie Expelled which came out a few months ago (I humbly refer you to my review of Expelled). It is critical of the videos points and written from a Christians perspective.

The point of the essay is whether Expelled is breaking down walls or raising division. It can clearly be seen that how divided the church let alone the American public are about the video it does appear to cause more division then unfettering.

Theistic Evolutionists and ID proponents go to war!

2008-06-19T00:47:00.001-07:00

Just was over at William Dembski's blog after reading his article on theistic evolution. I am afraid I will have to agree with Evolved on this one, Willie doesn't make himself look like the sharpest crayon in the crayon box. He makes the claim that theistic evolutionists think Intelligent Design is dangerous to the moral fabric of society. Well if you mean intellectual honesty and scientific accuracy is threatened by the tactics of ID proponents then I agree. However ID is not as much dangerous to morality as much as it is to the credibility of Christianity as large.

Now let us examine the next claim;

Miller has called himself an Orthodox Christian and an Orthodox Darwinian
(cf. the 2001 PBS Evolution Series). But one has to wonder which of these
masters he serves more faithfully. A year or so ago, when Richard Dawkins’s
website posted a blasphemy challenge (reported at UD here
— the challenge urged people to post a YouTube video of themselves blaspheming
the Holy Spirit), I asked Ken Miller for his reaction. He pooh-poohed it as “a
clumsy attempt to trivialize important issues.” The obvious question this raises
is whether systematic efforts by atheists to trivialize (and indeed denigrate)
important issues is itself an important issue.

Could it be that the evolutionists’ assault on both science (by
perpetuating the fraud that natural selection has unmatched creative powers) and
religion (by using evolution as a club to beat people of faith) is undermining
America’s soul? Not according to Miller. He’s got other fish to fry. For him,
it’s the ID proponents’ assault on evolution that is undermining America’s soul.
Forget about Dawkins and his blasphemy challenge. Let’s shaft the ID community.

Alright first of all it does not matter whether Ken Miller serves evolution or Christ more faithfully, what matters is that he is right on scientific matters, his religious sincerity is between him and God. Evolution is only an ideology if Gravitivism and Plate Tectonism are also ideologies. As for the blasphemy challenge, I thought it was stupid, so I pretty much agree with Miller. Besides the blasphemy challenge was for people who were already atheists to profess their unbelief. Now to the embarrassment of the Rational Response Squad which sponsored it that is not actually the unpardonable sin, of course that is a different subject.

"Evolutionists" are not attacking science anymore the ID is attacking religion, and yes Natural Selection with help of mutation does have near unlimited creative powers, yes proponents of atheism do use evolution to attack religion, of course they also use similar tactics when saying that religion can't be true when religious believers used to believe earth was flat or was geocentric. I think we have gotten over that, eventually we will be over creationism and will be able to give a straight forward defense of our faith. What Miller means by "America's soul" is not a spiritual soul but the fact that to Miller an attack on science is an attack on the American way of life, he is not making a statement on spirituality of any kind, of course ultimately the ID debate is over intensely important philosophical issues. Now for the real whopper;

In this powerfully argued and timely book, Ken Miller takes on the fundamental
core of the Intelligent Design movement, and shows with compelling examples and
devastating logic that ID is not only bad science but is potentially threatening
in other deeper ways to America’s future. But make no mistake, this is not some
atheistic screed — Prof. Miller’s perspective as a devout believer will allow
his case to resonate with believers and non-believers alike.”

The reason I and many other Christians oppose Intelligent Design is because they are missing one crucial component of a scientific theory its called EVIDENCE. IDers have so far failed to come up with any straight forward, reliable, peer-reviewed proof of Intelligent Design. If ID proponents are able to do this single feat then I will wholeheartedly support Intelligent Design, we are not as hard to convince as you might think. The reason we say it is as dangerous as atheism is that until ID can substantiate itself as a legitimate scientific theory it is at best pseudoscience and unreliable, and damaging to ones credibility. If Christian apologists are to align themselves with such questionable ideas such as Intelligent Design then we have basically made it easy for atheists to disprove our position because we have taken a flawed position. No doubt in the future atheists will use the stubbornness of some Christians not to accept the evolutionary theory against future Christians apologists because of our mistakes.

Dembski also goes on to state that one of the foremost critics of the ID position were in fact other Christians (oh I wonder why!?). Will and his colleagues need to understand that they have so much opposition from the religious community for one reason -- lack of, say it with me -- E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, On the other hand evolution has been the mainstream view for the past 150 years and evidence has continued only to increase. Most educated Christians are rightfully suspicious of a view which does not have much respect at all from the mainstream scientific community. Until Intelligent Design can is proven true it is dangerous to the credibility of faith and it should not be taken as an apologetic among Christians. We should instead stick to Thessalonians 5:21 and remain skeptical.

Here comes the war part;

So here’s the deal, everyone. Theistic evolutionists are implacably opposed to
ID (Denis Alexander, head of a Templeton funded science-religion center in
Oxford recently admitted, in these very terms, that this is his view toward ID
when he asked for my consent to use and edit a video of me — and you wonder why
I didn’t give my permission). They are happy to jump in bed with Richard Dawkins
if it means defeating ID. They are on the wrong side of the culture war.* And
they need to be defeated.

To war! I for one even though I agree with Dawkins on the scientific veracity of evolution there is precious little that we agree on otherwise, we are not going to promote the God Delusion simply because Richard Dawkins makes a good case for evolution. Once again theistic evolutionists would stop being implacably opposed if the IDers gave evidence to support their paradigm.

Of course Dembski makes the obvious point that getting the youth is the way to help the Intelligent Design movement. This is of course how theistic evolutionists should follow suit. We cannot save the older generation, but the young people we can, we can influence them also to be theistic evolutionists and to eliminate this weakness in Christian apologetics. Reaching the you is a game that two can play you know.

I am going to have to read the book "Intelligent Design; everything you need to know in plain language" to see if that book is really the gem his claims it is. I will overlook what he says about his book Godless, it seems to contradict the claims that ID has nothing to do with religion but I doubt they are trying to say that anymore, to close so I can go to sleep (its 1:30 in the morning right now) I will discuss his final paragraph;

You know, I would be happy to sit down with theistic evolutionists and discuss our differences. I think they are wrong to baptize Darwin’s theory as God’s mode of creation. But I don’t think they are immoral or un-Christian for holding their views. But ID proponents, for wanting ID to have a place at the table as a scientific alternative to Darwinism, are, according to Miller, Collins, Alexander, etc., immoral, undermining Western civilization, and destroying America’s soul. Well, you want this fight, you’ve got it.

Alright Will, your going to have to explain how theistic evolutionists think you are immoral besides the fact that you don't seem to be the most honest person around. Now I would be more then happy to let you have ID as an alternative to evolution but first you need this little annoying thing called evidence, if you can make it there then you have my attention. Until then consider us mutually disconcordant.

33-48,000 year old tree stump found in Permian rock?

2008-06-17T18:10:00.000-07:00

I was just reading an article on the AiG website where a 33,000 year old tree stump was found in Permian rock. The tree stump was dated with Radiocarbon (although obviously one shouldn't be using radiocarbon dating to test a 250 million year old rock). The notes after the creationist article claims that it most certainly was not due to contamination as well as in the article itself. The author seems pretty confident that it is genuine.

As many of you know the amount of C-14 in an atom becomes unnoticeable after 50,000 years, so the rationale is why is this C-14 has not become untraceable being that the rock it was found in is supposed to be 250 million years old? Being that it was written in 1998 Talk Origins probably already has a response to it. Otherwise could this be the "Cambrian bunny rabbit" that we have been asking creationists for? Young Earth Creationists don't get too excited but this could be something that genuinely contradicts the geological record as seen by modern science.

And to my fellow old earthers who may or may not also be creationists; it is your duty to debunk this.

Alright, I'll join in.

2008-06-15T06:53:00.000-07:00

Just following in another more experienced blogger's foot steps. Although you should be warned these questions are addressed to atheists so I might seem a little out of place here.

Q1 How would you define "atheism?"

As the lack of belief in God or gods, and a philosophical basis for any philosophy which leaves a supernatural power out of the equation in the formation of the universe.

Q2 Was your upbringing religious? If so what tradition?

Yes, I attend a fundamentalist non-denominational evangelical Church every Sunday however I do interpret Genesis differently then most Christians who go to that church.

Q3 How would you describe "Intelligent Design", in one word?

Misguided

Q4 What scientific endeavor really excites you?

Space Exploration, I hate to sound like a plagiarizer but its true, we are alike I want to be an astronaut.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

Since I am not part of the atheist community what could I change? Although For one thing I (Note to self: Try really hard to make this not look like a rant) think the "being polite to theists at all is appeasement" system is flawed. There is a difference between being polite to someone and helping their cause. But I can't change that, that is an intrinsic quality of the new atheist movement. If I were to change that I would have caused atheism's soul to be damned.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

I would be relieved that my child has independently chosen to follow my religion.

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

Being that I am not an atheist I will give my favourite atheistic argument. But then again I don't really a favourite after all I have heard most of them and well, I remain unconvinced.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

Well I'm not an atheist, but as far as controversial views go it can be summed up like this; I am a Christians who believes in evolution. That is pretty controversial at least among the faith and atheistic community.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Well I don't have a favourite of the four horsemen, I'm not even sure if I have least favourite, oh well.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who
would it be?

Well if I were like this (which I am not) It would be guy who got the bright idea of the inquisition, then Christianity would not have that embarrassment. If you ask which atheist I would like to convince to change his beliefs, I am shooting high; RD himself.

Now name three other atheist blogs that you’d like to see take up the Atheist
Thirteen gauntlet:

Well I am not an atheist so I don't really have collaborators, I am all alone, and I think atheists have done a good enough job defending themselves without a theist helping them.

Rael takes on the blasphmey challenge

2008-06-14T19:49:00.000-07:00

Now this you would probably expect, I was surfing the Internet and I ran across this video. Forgive me for saying this but its frankly ridiculous. Rael, the founder of the Raelian movement which believes that humans were intelligently designed by aliens; now I have no problem with believing you are designed, I believe in God you have just as much right to believe in aliens who created humans.

Well although they do say that they apparently have evidence, its the same evidence the Intelligent Design advocates have however. The entire video is pretty silly, I am trying very hard to hold back any sarcasm over one thing which really stuck. Rael is apparently opposed to today's calender because its based off the Christian calender.

Oh pulleeze! Who cares not even the most paranoid atheists want the calender changed. Its not even really a Christian calender anymore, rather then "BC (Before Christ)" and "AD (Anno Dominae = Year of our Lord)" its BCE or Before Common Era and CE or Common Era. And its a useful calender, there is no need to change it. After all is there anyone who really cares? If you really care say so in the comments.

And atheists who think unlike myself he is truly one of you; ignore his rationalistic rhetoric, he's religious through and through despite the fact he doesn't believe in God.

The entire video is rather strange, go ahead and make your own judgements of it.

The inquisitors are at it again...

2008-06-13T09:06:00.000-07:00

I was on the Evolved and Rational blog, and I commented on one of her articles in a discussion with another supposed Christian (he's probably a joke though). Well, he has this to sat about me after I asked what his real name was since he claimed to be scientist at AiG.

CHRISTIANS BEWARE, Created Rationalist is a Darwinist supporter of the
EXPOSED Shalini Sehkar (Evolved Rationalist LIAR)!!!Beware his heretical,
unGODly lies!!

Ok, lets grind through this comment point by point;

CHRISTIANS BEWARE,

And yes he actually does write almost everything in all capitals, and being that I am a Christian I should probably beware to, but for different reasons. Christians should probably be aware of this guy (whose user name is creationist). because what he says is so amazingly ridiculous Creationist is most likely making fun of Christians who actually are young earth creationists who support Answers In Genesis

Created Rationalist is a Darwinist...

Like anyone who went to my blog doesn't already know that. I let people disagree with me, its fine if they want to have their own views of the creation.

supporter of the EXPOSED Shalini Sekhar (Evolved Rationalist LIAR)!!!

Alright, first of all Evolved Rationalist =/= Shalini Sekhar, and second of all I am not a supporter of evolved rationalist anymore the Kent Hovind (and whats hilarious is that Hovinds last name is not in my computers dictionary) is a supporter of Hugh Ross. I agree with her on certain scientific issues (such as the fact of evolution) but I disagree with almost everything she says in regards to philosophy, God, religion, and even social conduct.

Beware of his heretical unGODLY lies!!

Alright Creationist, stop accusing people of being liars and actually try to discredit what I and ER say about evolution, the age of the earth, and the Big Bang. Or I could just as easily call Creationist a liar since he is either closed to ignoring obvious truth or mocking the Christian faith. Either way I would distance myself from him, and I would suggest other Christians to do the same.

politics...and by the way my writer's block is over!

2008-06-10T09:41:00.000-07:00

You are probably wondering why why I have not written much on this blog in past few days. It is because I had a serious case of writer's block and was unsure of what to write, sorry for the inconvenience, also I am blogging from a hotel room in Hawaii and have not felt like working. I was perusing through Splendidelles blog and found an interesting article about Obama and McCain. Now in order for you to understand this article you are going to have to watch the videos , so watch them and then we can continue this discussion.

This loosely relates to creation and evolution but more importantly it relates to Christianity and its role in society. McCain apparently thinks it is our duty to uphold Judaeo-Christian values and Obama thinks the opposite; he thinks that we should keep society as pluralistic as possible since not everybody has the same religion.

Many Christians would agree with McCain on saying our nations duty is to uphold Christian values, however I am not sure if it is the government which should be upholding Christian values as much as it should be the church; now I understand that church has done a lousy job at that in recent decades. Many churches are complacent, stuck up, intolerant, or just plain nuts; and have failed to show the Christian love that we Christians ought to show to others. Many Christians myself including have from time to time done a shabby job at upholding Christian values ourselves, but of course the are the churches (such as mine, no arrogance intended) which have done a pretty good job. Now the question is, if the church has such trouble upholding the teachings of Christ then how do you expect the government to do any better? The other problem is pointed out by Obama that the United States is not a Christian nation; most Christians myself including would agree the United States is pretty far from being a Christian nation despite the fact that three fourths of the population claims affiliation with Christianity. The United States is also a nation belonging to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Atheists; so in the public arena you can't just quote bible verses saying abortion or euthanasia is wrong (note: I will be suing abortion as an example of a practice which Christians want to be outlwed but it doesn't quite agree with the general public, go a ahead and insert any roblem you like). You have to give other reasons unrelated to faith to oppose things which your faith rejects as immoral. If you don't give a good reason not to do something outside the bible you might as well be trying to convince someone not to do something because the Harry Potter books say not to; first Christians must convert the population to their point of view, then they can start making laws endorsing the bible.

And one thing must be said about universalization; if a prayer is put into schools it would have to be non-sectarian thus it would really be a prayer to any God let alone the Christian one because it would have to be open for people of all faiths. Now Jesus told us Christians only to pray in his name, so a non-sectarian prayer would be a prayer which a Christian would not be able to take part in, so to Christians; its either a prayer to a deity other then the Christian God or no prayer in school endorsed at all, take your pick. The same thing would go for many other areas; for example having the bible taught in schools, it could be taught in a comparative religion class which would mean other religions would be taught as well. I think that most Christians are comfortable with this idea (I sure am) but some of the most conservative who usually lead the Christian right would probably not like this idea. So its either the bible, the Hindu scriptures, the Qu'ran and all other major religions being taught in schools or none of them at all; take your pick, because that's the only thing the public is going to accept.

To close this discussion I must say that we as Christians must stand up for our beliefs, however before we start making laws endorsing Christianity we must make a successful case for the legitimacy of Christianity. There are many churches that need to wake up and start working for God. Otherwise Christianity is going to go down and out, now the warning I gave in this was that the bible although useful among Christians, might as well be a roll of toilet paper to people who are not Christians. We must first convince them that our view is correct. Before you can outlaw abortion you must give extra biblical reasons not to have an abortion otherwise you are just forcing your own beliefs on people, and that is not acceptable.

Why the earth is 4.6 billion years old

2008-06-05T22:15:00.000-07:00

This issue has been brought up many times, mainly I have given a theological perspective on why to believe in a 4-billion year old earth, of course that is getting old (no pun intended). In this article will explain why most scientists believe earth is 4.6 billion years old. Now I do not accept the current scientific thinking in these areas simply because I lack faith or because I don't want to "obey God's word," I would like nothing more then to have a belief on origins more consistent with my religious beliefs, but young earth creationism is not an option atleast not from a scientific perspective. And in this article I will show you why I think this way.

Proof 1; Radiometric dating

The first proof I must bring up is radiometric dating, now I can already hear some people saying, "The dating methods are completely inaccurate! The R.A.T.E. proved it. "

I hear your plea and will get to that in a moment, but first let me explain how radiometric dating works to those who are in the dark about it. Lets take the most famous type of radiometric dating which is known widely throughout young earth creationist circles, you've guessed it; Radiocarbon dating (I also left a link for those who want to know more about it from more professional sources). Radiocarbon dating is used to date objects within the realm of 60,000 years of age (so it obviously wouldn't be prove of a billion-year old earth). There are two stable carbon atoms in nature; carbon-12 and carbon 13. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere they hit the stable carbon 12 atoms which become carbon 14 atoms. C-14 is ingested by plants for photosynthesis, they receive C-14 at a constant rate throughout their life, so do the animals that eat the plants. Now when an animal or plant dies no more C-14 is being consumed; what happens? You remember that C-14 is unstable and will eventually decay back into C-12. Well it has been calculated that it has a half-life of 5,730 years, meaning that in 5,730 years half of the C-14 in the organism will have decayed back into C-12 (this is an unsatisfying brief explanation if you want to know more about C-14 dating go the link I provided ). Other methods work about the same way; during a volcanic eruption the argon gas which Potassium (40-K) decays into escapes from the lava, then when the lava hardens all you have is potassium which decays into Argon (Ar-40) in 1.26 billion years, (a little longer then 10,000 years) this method is called Potassium-Argon dating.

Now I am sure several of you are exploding with anxiety especially since the two examples I gave are favourite targets of young earth creationists. One thing that is often brought up is wildly inaccurate dates. For example rock that had formed in the mount Saint Helens eruption in 1980, was dated at several million years. This has a simply explanation however; xenoliths are foreign sections of rock torn of a lava conduit during an eruption. The rock may be millions of year older then the lava itself. When the lava around the xenolith hardens it causes the otherwise young rock around it to look older then it really is, it turns out Mount Saint Helens incident was where a xenolith had hardened in the crust. There are many times where this happens; geologists recognize there are limitations to dating methods and do indeed understand they can be innacurate. However only about 100 out of 100,000 are inaccurate. This is in fact actually quite reliable; plus they are crosschecked with other dating techniques and as a result you get a pretty reliable date. Now that we know they are reliable, lets look at the problem for young earth creationism, the problem is blaring obvious. if these method are accurate then why do we have elements in the soil which form so slowly? Now you might also ask just how slow are we talking? Very, very slow;

Potassium-Argon = 1.26 billion years

Uranium-Lead = 4.47 billion years

Rubidium-Strontium = 50 billion years

These methods are also discussed here at the American Scientific Affiliation website.

If young earthers are right, then there shouldn't be anything which looks older then 6500 years. If you look at potassium it should look like only 6500 years worth of decay has been happening, not billions. And yet we do find elements which have been decaying for millions even billions of years. Now you could just say, "God created the universe to look old," and that's fine. But its not any more scientifically relevant then saying Queen Maeve the house cat created the universe last Thursday and created the world to look far older. Both positions are unfalsifiable. These beliefs are fine for believing something but if you want to make a scientific theory it needs to be testable. The "Appearance of Age" hypothesis is not testable and anything in science which is not testable cannot be inferred as a scientific idea, or a viable alternative to any scientific concept.

So the fact that the dating methods show an old earth is inescapable.

Proof 2; varves, sandstone deposits, and coral reefs.

Varves in case anyone doesn't know are bi-annual layers of silt that are deposited in lake bottoms. They have two layers, a thin fine layer and a thick coarser layer; the coarser layer is from the summer months since more water enters the lake from the heavy rain fall so larger particles can be moved into the lake. During the winter months there is less rain comes so there are smaller particles and finer layers. Now the obvious problem for young earth creationism is that there are lots of them, far more then would be expected if earth were 6,000 years old. One location where there are lots of varves is the green river valley formation; it has 3 million years worth of varves. If earth is only 6-10,000 years old it should have no more then 3-5,000 varves. Now there are many objections to this, most of them are covered here.

Sandstone deposits such as the Coconino sandstone were formed by wind deposition in a desert environment. It could not have formed during catastrophic flood. The problem comes in when you consider that over many sandstone deposits such as the one I just mentioned, where there are marine fossil deposits which were supposed to have formed in the flood; How could this be if they were formed in a world wide flood?

Coral reefs grow a little annually, in fact we can tell how old a coral is by how much it has grown. There are many coral reefs far older then the flood date (4400 years ago) that would be completely destroyed in the violent events of the flood and definitely not preserved. This appears to be an ever nagging problem for young earth creationists.

Proof 3; The universe indicates earth is old

The third and final proof I will give involves the entire universe. As you may know the universe is pretty large, the farthest galaxies being almost 14 billion lightyears away. The question that comes to mind when you consider this is, how the universe can be so young and look so old? Young Earth Creationists have scrambled to come up with the answer. Sure you can say God just made the universe to look that way; but when it comes to science that is irrelevant since it is non-falsifiable, now if you want to believe this go ahead, but when it comes to science we need to consider something which can be proven with science the Appearance of Age hypothesis cannot.

Conclusion

By the looks of it earth must be millions if not billions of years old and there isn't an escape hatch in sight. Hopefully this will be insightful, I may not have changed any of your minds but perhaps I have caused you to think about it.

Now of course if you disagree respond and debate (and yes Chris, that means you), perhaps you will change my mind, and perhaps you won't.

Fears of millions of years unfounded

2008-05-31T18:27:00.000-07:00

Most of you are probably thinking "alright enough about outer space, lets get back to creation and evolution."

Well I have been thinking that too don't worry (hope I didn't lose too many of you), I have an unfortunate case of blogger's block, however I did run into a an article on the Answers In Creaton website which discusses the supposed problems with old earth belief. This poses no problem for the young earth creationist, but I am curious how any young earth creationist would respond, so let the games begin.

Note: I rewrote this article, the other one sounded incredibly complacent, to anyone who read it I apologize.

Does Christianity permit life on other planets?

2008-05-31T11:24:00.000-07:00

This question is rather important to some people and less to others. The opinion varies from denomination to denomination. Conservative non-denominational evangelicals usually tend to think that our planet is the only planet with life in the universe. Answers In Genesis holds this view, of course they go so far as to claim life on other planets is based on "evolutionary" and "humanistic" assumptions (yes they can tell the difference between evolution and Secular Humanism, they simply choose not to I guess). On the other side of the extreme the Roman Catholic Church has embraced the idea of extraterrestrial life, they even go as far to say that space would be a missionfield to spread the gospel to other civilizations.

My personal belief is that there is life on other planets, possibly even intelligent life (which sometimes I wonder if it is yet to arise on this planet). There is nothing unscientific about the idea of life on other planets, the main question when it comes to Christianity is a theological one. These intelligent, humanlike aliens if they exist would have freewill. Thus they would have the ability to sin, and thus they would need Christ to save them. The problem is that Christ only died for humans, unless God has a radically different plan for them or he decided to just let them all burn in hell (which I think is very unlikely) Christ would have to visit each planet and die for each races sins. if we are talking unintelligent (or the other term presapient) life then the problem evaporates. The Pheonix probe which landed on Mars on March 25 is searching for water, and life on Mars (microbial life of course). They have even discovered something which might be ice on the surface. This is no problem for Christians. God simply also created life on Mars. Intelligent life isn't necessarily a problem either.

Now if Christ died for all sapient beings in the universe on earth. This problem would not be as bad. It could be that God created all sapient life in the universe about the same time (note this does necessarily mean special creation). At first they were all perfect, then Satan fell from grace and went about causing thousands if not millions or trillions of races to fall from perfection (although some of them may fallen simply because they made the wrong choice and Satan had nothing to do with it). Some would fall but others would resist temptation and right now would be perfect Utopian societies where there is no death, no suffering, no injustice, and no misery. Then there would be their fallen counterparts which would be much like the human race. Being capable of Godlike feats (such as science, humanitarianism, and contact with the creator of the universe) and at the same time being capable of unspeakable evil (such as genocide, rape, etc.). And when Christ died they now all have chance. It might even be humanities responsibility to bring the gospel to the universe, although I would count on it. No doubt God if he indeed exists has revealed himself to all these races and told them of Christs suffering on the cross. Now if Jesus died for each of them individually there are two options; if he did it simultaneously then it would be virtually no different except every culture would have a depiction of Jesus the savior. If he didn't do it all at once then it seems like it would be almost a cycle that all races go through independently. First they would be born unfallen and without flaws, then if they fall into sin they would be a fallen race. Then Christ would come, die on their planet (or at least one of their planets) then they would be a "semi-redeemed" race which is in the process of being restored. Finally there is a Redeemed race; which is back to prefall perfection being ruled directly by God. This idea seems far to De-Chardinish for my taste. Most likely the other view that Christ died simultaneously for the sins all race had or ever would commit is correct, the reason being that there is no scriptural support for a cyclic pattern in the redemption of sapient beings. There are also Christians who think aliens are really demons, well I don't think so, they would probably be on the same level as us.

At the moment this is not a particularly important question since no life in outer space has been discovered. But it is still interesting to talk about.

The saddest thing about anti-science Christians

2008-05-28T21:17:00.000-07:00

I was at the Bad Astronomers blog. He has talked about Ray Comfort (the banana guy). Ray Comfort in his blog talked about the Phoenix probe landing on Mars. He talks how he thinks exploration is such a waste of time. For a natural theologian this seems surprisingly anti-science.

Now he does have a valid opinion that we should also be fixing problems on earth as well as be exploring space, but we have enough money to do both.

This highlights the saddest aspect of being an anti-science Christian as opposed to being a pro-science Christian. You miss the grandeur of the creation of God. You miss the expression of the creator's creativity, ingenuity, beauty, intelligence, and most of all the power of the God we claim to worship. Whether or not God created the the universe in six days or six ages of natural processes the universe shouts the glory of anyone who could make it.

Visit the Phoenix section at the NASA website. There are some pretty awesome pictures as well as stories. Someday humans may explore the surface, as well, we will leave and explore the universe leaving people like Ray Comfort behind.

Of asteroids and of conspiracy theories

2008-05-26T07:01:00.000-07:00

Well before I leave for three weeks, I Just have to write on this subject. I just watched one of the silliest videos of all time. It is a Christian who has bought into the 2012 "end of the world" nonsense, ignoring verses like Matthew 24:23-28, and unintentionally spreading something which is untrue, (which likely to annoy astronomers and sensible people atleast until 2012). And unfortunately other Christians have been dragged into this rumor.

The rumor has two flavors, one is that on December 22, 2012 a planet Nibiru (which supposedly exists beyond the orbit of Pluto) will come very close the the earth causing floods, earthquakes, tsunamis etc.

The second flavor is that a giant asteroid is going to hit earth on that day and that will be wormwood ( a cosmic object described in Revelation). Well the video I am reviewing is one of the second kind (although the first flavor is also really silly). The person in mind (his user name being Saintbirgitta.com) states that an asteroid will collide with the earth probably around December 22, 2012.

Both of these are unlikely because neither an asteroid or a planet is going to come that close to earth in 2012, as far as asteroids go; 2012 is going to be one boring year.

Of course if there was an asteroid that was going to hit the earth on 2012 we'd be able to tell, and as we speak NASA would be working on laser technology to try to blow this asteroid off course so it would miss the earth. Now there is an asteroid which will come near earth, but it will come around holloween (yes holloween) 2029, it will come very close to earth but it will miss it. Now whats funny about this talk about asteroid impacts is that back in mid January there were some people who said an asteroid was going to destroy the planet on January 29, 2008! This asteroid was a real asteroid called tu24 which like most other asteroids just passed by unnoticed. And the asteroid which will visit us in 2029 will probably also catch some loonies as well (especially since its happening around holloween).

Now to my fellow Christians; this doesn't mean the world isn't eventually going to end, the bible does say eventually something more then a speck of dirt is going to hit our planet. But we don't know when this is going to happen, in Matthew 24:23 Jesus even goes so far as to say if someone says, "The world is going to end at this time and place" don't believe them! So unlike these two Christians, lets not be so quick to put our faith in rumors and put our faith in God.

Also to my atheist friends; I apologize for the ignorance and fear-mongering of my fellow Christians, there is really nothing which can be done to help this misguided people.

Where is Copernicus when you need him.

2008-05-22T12:51:00.000-07:00

You think Christianity has enough problems with young earth creationism? Well these guys go one step further, no the attack on God's word didn't start with Darwin! No!!! It started with the Galileo affair!(Not).

Modern Geocentrists luckily are not very popular among Christians. They aren't popular at Answers In Genesis one of their foremost critics (besides materialist skeptics). Most young earth creationists distance themselves from Modern Geocentrists, which would be wise. Scientific and theological illiteracy seems endemic to Modern American society, I'm afraid. Of course I am optimistic, I believe despite these kinds of people we will continue to move forward, if not at a slower pace.

Towards a synthesis between science and religion

2008-05-22T08:44:00.000-07:00

At first this may seem like the average, "making faith compatible with science" rant which usually follows. In Christianity, the attempt to combine reason and faith goes back as far as the early church fathers if no earlier. One of the champions of this field was St. Augustine who did his best to bring the two in harmony.

But of course we mustn't only make faith compatible with science, but also make faith hospitable for science. In order for them to be truly compatible they must both contribute to each other.
This would be a science-compatible theology, where science and theology are mutually adding to and sustaining each other. Now atheists and agnostics don't necessarily have to worry about this having no reason to combine science and faith. However since religious people still have a fair amount of influence in the world so atheists and agnostics and other non-religious people would probably be interested in a theology which does not force all society to accept their worldview, or at least subtly enough that it would still be a choice whether or not to believe in God.

So the objective of a practical science-compatible theology would be;

-- to lay a strong philosophical foundation for science

--Generate intense interest in science

--to Give science the freedom they need to explore the natural world without undermining the authority of the theology

--Be able to differentiate between scientific and spiritual questions

Therefore this religion would allow science to prosper and thrive while contributing to the religion.

Of course if we are to know how faith and science are compatible we must not just reconcile the latest scientific research and the current paradigms but the basic philosophic assumptions by which both science and faith operate. Let us first examine the foundations of science which are;

Uniformity in nature -- In order for science to work there must be laws in nature that repeat themselves in predictable patterns. So that we can test, experiment with, and observe the laws. Uniformity in nature is very important for the scientific worldview.

Objective truth -- Postmodernism (one of its many meanings being that there is no objective reality) is almost the exact opposite of the scientific worldview which states that there is an objective reality. The reason is because in order for science to work there must be a reality which we can test all ideas against, if there is no objective reality science is worthless and the necessity of science is eliminated.

The reliability of the senses and human reason -- Reason is obviously important to science, reason is how we do science. In order for science to be a trustworthy method of finding truth, reason must be reliable; because science is all about using our reasoning powers to discover the world around us. If we cannot trust our reason then science is worthless, because science is built on that crucial assumption. Also the trustworthiness of our senses goes hand in hand with this assumption since that is how we get information about the world, which our reason uses to put together of the pieces of the puzzle of existence.

Now that we know the foundations of science, how do we marry it to the philosophical foundations of faith? well what are the philosophical foundations of faith?;

That there is a reality in which the human intellect is inapplicable-- This is essentially faith, being that human reason is unreliable in gaining knowledge of this unseen world at least can only come from revelation. Now at first, this may seem to make faith and science seem like two contradictory views. But then again it is only referring to the unseen reality in which the five senses are not reliable tools for examining that reality. This does not necessarily mean all reality is undecipherable to human reason.

That there is an unseen reality which ultimately affects our reality -- This is fundamental to Abrahamic faith, since it implies a force from another reality which engulfs our own in its power, and that what happens in the other reality ultimately affect what happens in this reality and vice verca.

Objective Truth -- This objective truth is truth not established by human opinion but by the force which comes from the unseen reality, it is truth which will not change no matter how much a man wants it to.

Absolute Truth -- Even more important to faith is absolute truth. This truth unlike the uncertain truth in science is absolute and unchanging, this aspect of faith is what draws so many people to it. This truth is not found by human reason by revealed by the force from the unseen reality. So therefore it cannot change, that would upset a cardinal philosophical pillar of faith.

How do we reconcile these two views? At first they seem to be exact opposites, science says human reason is reliable and faith says the opposite; however it is clear faith only deems the unseen supernatural realm as inaccessible to human reason, and knowable only through revelation. Also both science and faith operate by the same assumption that there is an objective truth.

Well the obvious question for the Christian is, "Does the bible support science?" The bible gives strong support for using nature for the benefit of Man (Genesis 1:28) which is the the best reason for science. Also there are several verses which imply the reliability of human reason when applied to nature. One is Job 12:7-8; But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you. "Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you; And let the fish of the sea declare to you. This passage implies that our senses can be used to accurately understand the world. Also Romans 1:20 gives a clear indication that God expects us to be able to use our reason to determine his existence.

So we can say that the bible supports use of human reasoning skills from these two verses. The bible also supports uniformity in nature with passages like Genesis 8:22. Since the biblical God is unchanging and not whimsical in his moral judgements, it is not to much to extrapolate that he is not whimsical with natural law, thus allowing for science to exist. And obviously the bible supports the idea of an objective truth, otherwise the biblical worldview would be forfeit since it clearly states that there is only one truth.
So we find that;
--The bible supports objective truth
--the bible supports limited use of the mind when examining nature
--the bible supports uniformity in nature
--and the bible gives proper incentive for science.
So what would be the biblical reason for science? Well in Genesis 1:28 God gave us dominion of this planet and told us to develop it and to use its resources for our own benefit. Science is the best way to do this, at the same time science is the study of God's creation so it should be incredibly interesting to anyone who is interested in God. Because it is another revelation by which we may know God's face.

So ultimately faith and science are compatible, so let us work together to find truth. If science and religion can work together along these lines, one providing the philosophical foothold and the other gathering information about the world then we are on the right path towards reconcilliation.

"Ten so called Dangers of evolution (rebuttal)" series promotion.

2008-05-20T08:42:00.000-07:00

Being that no one appears to have my three last posts on theistic evolution (a rebuttal of the Answers in Genesis article "Ten dangers of theistic evolution"). I ave decided to remind those reading this of them;

Ten so called Dangers of theistic evolution part 1 (dangers 1-3)

Ten so called Dangers of theistic evolution part 2 (dangers 4-7)

Ten so called dangers of theistic evolution part 3 (dangers 8-10)

They should be resourceful, tell me if you have any problems with them.

Why Young Earth Creationism isn't science

2008-05-18T18:27:00.000-07:00

I have been asked why I don't consider young earth creationism science. It is true young earth creationism is having an unanswerable problem with evidence to support itself, but that does not mean it couldn't otherwise be a scientific theory.

The reason its not science is because young earth creationism does not even follow the same methodology as science, so even if it were legitimate it wouldn't be considered science. You see science starts with no presuppositions of how the world is supposed to be, then looks at the evidence and forms a conclusion; presuppositions may exist but they are ignored. Science draws the conclusion after gathering the evidence. Young Earth Creationism starts out with the conclusion that earth is 6,000 years old and was reshaped by flood 4400 years ago and then find evidence to support the conclusion they have already come to, then they have to force-fit all science into this conclusion. They even freely preach this position; here is a quote from the leading creationist Ken Ham;

When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my
response is as follows:
‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I
believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly
interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how
building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by
science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals
and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this
presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection,
genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the
science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

At first glance Ken Ham's view does seem reasonable after all we do interpret everything according to our own biases don't we? Also This perspective allows a person intelligent or not to comfortably except any view and feel perfectly comfortable with it, even though to an outside observer it may obvious that the person is mistaken. Ken Ham has successfully crafted a way that you can believe whatever you want and not have to deal with what the facts have to actually say at all. If I didn't have such high scruples and respect for rational inquiry I would accept this view; it is very, very comfortable, but is it rational? Is this view really how we find truth, is this really how science worked all along? In any area? Why if this idea were true archaeology would be impossible since we would not know anything about this civilization except what they left behind, "we weren't there." The past before human experience can be known.
Suppose I were out hiking in the mountains and I came across the body of a deer which had fallen in my path, also suppose after examining it I found that it was torn apart and showed teeth marks, I would say it must have been eaten by wolves. At this point the only evidence for a wolf attack is the fact that it has teeth marks on its body (as well as the fact that its body was in several pieces). Well what else can I do? Suppose I were to look for wolf foot prints, the deer looks like it was killed relatively recently so there should still be foot prints in the area; so I look around and lo' and behold, there are wolf foot prints all around the place. Also lets say I have to spend the night around that spot, and while I am uneasily trying to sleep I hear wolves howling. This is not a perfect analogy but it shows you can indeed tell what happened in the past without having to here it from an eye witness. Now I may not have the entire picture but I have the basic idea; the deer was attacked by wolves, large parts of its body were eaten. So I can get some idea of the past, unlike how Ken Ham seems to think that we have no way of knowing.

Also there are several problems just with his last few sentences.
--Science does not make sense under his interpretation of the bible
--The bible was never meant to be a science textbook, the bible itself makes this obvious, if it were meant to be a scientific text, the parts of the bible discussing scientific topics (the origin of the universe for one) would be no doubt more detailed.

What do we have here in this view that young earth creationists embrace? Well if this is true and our presuppositions determine reality, then there is no objective truth. You can go ahead and claim the bible is the truth in this view but that is just you assertion, there actually is no substance to it, a Muslim could just as easily claim that what the koran says is absolute truth and his position would be just as valid as your own. Unknowingly and unintentionally Ken Ham and his followers have bought into postmodernism, a view which is both anti-science and anti-Christian, both science and the Christian faith demand that there is a truly objective truth to which all truth can be tested against, otherwise both are in trouble. No matter how tempting an idea may be, we cannot accept postmodern ideas to justify its acceptance.

It must also be mentioned that this view has a general intolerance about it, Answers in Genesis will accept no other interpretations then their own, if you question it based on scientific evidence which contradicted it, you are now a heretic. If we are to make this view the normal view of the scientific community then we have just sentenced science and the scientists to prison, this isn't reconciling science and faith, it is placing science under the thumb of an unnecessary dogma. This isn't science being reconciled with faith, its more like science being oppressed by faith. What could happen if this view is accepted as the mainstream philosophical view on science? Scientists may be forced to rewrite all science into a particular interpretation of the bible, any evidence that truly contradicts their philosophical presuppositions will have to be rationalized or ignored, if they dare try to bring it up as a challenge to the particular view of the scientific community, it would be like a rerun of the Spanish inquisition.

Answers in Genesis says so itself that no theory if it contradicts their view of scripture can be legitimate, if it conflicts with there position it is wrong and that's that, no other examination required. And anyone who dares oppose there position will be fired from their job, lose their reputation and ultimately neither science nor Christianity will be helped by this theocratic control over the scientific community; both will be held back, perhaps for centuries.

Now I am not saying people don't have presuppostions, of course they dom its just they must be discussed in their proper place, in the realm of metaphysics, not in physical science.

I am not saying the AiG proponents all think this way or that somewhere along the line the next generation which holds this veiw might become the oppressors

Ten so called dangers of theistic evolution part 3 (answering dangers 8-10)

2008-05-17T14:37:00.001-07:00

Well this is the last part of my rebuttal to the AiG article "Ten Dangers of Theistic Evolution."

I will finish answering the last couple attacks on theistic evolution; dangers eight, nine, and ten (also if you have not read parts one and two go ahead and look at them).

Alright, enough babbling, lets dig in;

Danger no. 8: Loss of Creation Concepts

At first glance, um...no it doesn't, and if you look further their first reason I am afraid isn't very convincing:

Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These
include:
--God created matter without using any available material.

Theistic Evolution does not imply that matter was created out of existing material, the Big Bang implies almost a creation out of nothin; of course boith sides will interpret the Big Bang by how they see the universe.

--God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the
solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence
conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’
cosmology.

Here is an excellent article on why this isn't necessarily the case; there is also one article addressing this topic on the Answers In Creation website. And I should mention one more interesting article on Rich Deem's God and Science website on why the old earth interpretation makes as much if not more sense as the young earth interpretation.

Danger no. 9: Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.
Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, ‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.4
If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!

Now this is almost amusing, the young earth creationist writer seems to think theistic evolutionists in particular are the same as atheistic evolutionists. The bible is definitely authoritative in the opinion of many theistic evolutionists including myself. It simply doesn't give us the full story: the story not told God has given us the joy of finding out for ourselves, now can you young earth creationists stop interrupting please? Of course I and most all Christians disagree with Richard Dawkins on what he said about particular creation stories. And lastly Evolution is probably true, and the scientifically established age of the earth as well as the Big Bang are definitely true; so I think our theology is pretty safe, how about you?

Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose

Missing the purpose of the entire bible is what AiG supporters do best, now why do they think we are missing the purpose? Lets see:

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements
of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:
--Man is God’s purpose in
creation (Genesis
1:27-28).

Agreed...no stumbling blocks for the theistic evolutionist

--Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah
53:5)

Agreed...no stumbling blocks for the theistic evolutionist here either

--Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1
John 4:9).

Agreed...once again this is no problem for the theistic evolutionist, only the deistic or atheistic evolutionist.

--We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus
3:7).

Agreed, not a problem for the theistic evolutionist.

--Heaven is our destination (1
Peter 1:4).

Sigh...will you please bring up a something which actually is a problem for theistic evolution? this sensory underload is killing me; the author was doing good at first but now he's just showing a how little he knows about theistic evolutionists.

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

Well in the end even my view of evolution says that evolution doesn't have anything to do with our purpose in life or how we should act. Evolution is simply how God created us and how he created life on earth, it really doesn't determine who we are; Atheism and Materialism are the philosophies which say Man has no purpose not evolution. Evolution just biological change over time.

Well that concludes my rebuttal. AiG doesn't seem to understand evolution or theistic evolution. Either. Hopefully an era will come in the future where religion and science are in perfect harmony and both sides have learned to compliment each other. Unfortunately that time seems far into the future, it may never come before the second coming.

Ten so called dangers of theistic evolution part 2 (answering dangers 4-7)

2008-05-16T17:08:00.000-07:00

I promised I would continue to cover the supposed ten dangers in a later post and so I shall. have received a lot of reception with my last post from young earth creationists and a few atheists. On e concern appears to be that theistic evolution is contrary to the word and I shall answer that claim.

Now onto the so called danger number four;

Danger no. 2: Loss of the Way for Finding
God
"The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after
Adam’s fall (Romans
7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and
lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke
19:10).
However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of
missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is
exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful.
If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for
finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary
scenario."

Theistic Evolutionists agree with the first paragraph; yes according to Christian theology Man is completely ensnared in sin and evolution does not help make sin meaningless, pre-human hominids may have done things which if they were human would be considered sinful, but at that time they were merely highly intelligent animals. When hominids became humans with souls and morality and a way of knowing God they were meant to act different from animals and primitive hominids, but they still did the animalistic thing and fell from grace. So they still need salvation, they still need Jesus, this by no means impedes upon the Christian doctrine of salvation.

Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is
Undermined

And why do they think this? Their reasons border on absurd;

"The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic
teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt
among us’ (John
1:14), ‘Christ Jesus … was made in the likeness of men (Philippians
2:5-7)."

OK...a young earth creationist it going to have to explain to me why theistic evolution undermines the word becoming flesh, because this makes no sense. Yes According to Christian teaching, Christ came in the flesh, and he came in the image of a man. The fact that God made the human body through millions of years of evolution has not negatively impact the fact that Christ came in human form. That is like saying; "If Adam and Eve were not Jewish then the Carnation of Christ is undermined because the bible says Jesus was Jewish."

Danger no. 6: The Biblical Basis of Jesus' Work of Redemption is
Mythologized

This is pretty self explanatory, but I will still give you the text of why they think this;

The Bible teaches that the first man’s fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).
Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from ‘the dust of the ground’ by God (Genesis 2:7). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.

I agree with "sin came into the world by Adam" except for the no death before sin part, I personally think Adam was a real person, most conservative Christians who believe in evolution do not say Adam wasn't a real person. He probably was a real person; he may not have been the first physical person but he was the first spiritual person definitely. I think that Adam and Eve lived in the earliest part of human history and probably are the genetic as well as spiritual ancestors of all people alive today (note this does not necessarily mean they were literally the first humans) . Thus the redemption is not mythologized and this young earth claim is baseless.

Danger no. 7: Loss of Biblical Chronology

As far as salvation is concerned that is 100% irrelevant. And as far as Biblical Chronology is concerned; lets see why they think this is the case.

The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible.

No it doesn't, it only gives us hints which we may interpret according to our own prejudices. The Genealogies probably have gaps, and there is enough scientific evidence for an old earth and universe to suggest the bible leaves a lot out, that is because the bible was not meant to convey scientific knowledge.

This time-scale includes:
--The time-scale cannot be extended
indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined
beginning in Genesis
1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew
24:14).

Once again that isn't true, and the end times presents no problem whatsoever for Theistic Evolution or Old Earth Creationism

--The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus
20:11).

Exodus 20:11 has no chronological merit the same word for day is used as in Genesis

--The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies
recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly). It is of
the order of several thousand years, not billions.

The geological record suggests millions of years, I think we can revise the genealogies. Besides Man has only been here for a few thousand years and the genealogies only count after Adam

--Galatians
4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history:
‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This
happened nearly 2,000 years ago.

Galatians 4:4 has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the earth, and yes I accept the most outstanding event in the history of the universe is yet to come.

--The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future
event.

Amen, but what the on earth does this have to do with evolution or the age of the earth?

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the
biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales
involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no
convincing physical grounds).

When it comes to biblical chronology, the measures given in the bible are conveniently flexible. we theistic evolutionists only accept the "evolutionist" timescales because God's creation declares them to be accurate, now back to you Werner.

This can lead to two errors:

Lets look at these two errors

1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken
seriously.

You do agree that some parts of the bible shouldn't be taken literally don't you? You know things like passages which imply geocentrism and those which would make more sense under a geocentric framework. We know well enough that these are not addressing scientific concepts eventually Christians will know that Genesis 1 is not a scientific text. Only if you go the extreme will this become a problem. The extreme is taking a position without analyzing each step rationally to make sure it was the correct position and some in between position isn't better. As long as you do this devaluing of the biblical text won't happen. And if the bible turns out to be wrong it will happen, but since I and most Christians are not convinced the Bible is false so I won't jump to that conclusion.

2. Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

Probably not, how we look at the beginning does not always define how we look at the end.

Well I only got to seven, I will finish answering the rest of them in my final post about this topic; part 3.

Ten so called dangers of theistic evolution

2008-05-15T14:46:00.000-07:00

Answers In Genesis the current hub of the young earth creationist movement (the other being Institute for Creation Research) has written several articles devoted to tearing down the mainstream Christian position on evolution (to make their view look more credible). Well one of them is the "Ten Dangers of Theistic Evolution."

They basically spell out the reason they are trying to tear evolution to the ground (and doing a bad job I am afraid).

Note: For those of you who seem to think so, I am attacking Answers In Genesis, I am not quarrelling over an unimportant issue. I am correcting AiG in a realm I think they are clearly mistaken.

Well lets get right into it. The first problem involves the common misconception among young earth creationists that theistic evolutionists somehow devalue God, or say that he is not as powerful. It is also based on the "no death before sin" argument for young teaching in the bible;

Danger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the nature of
God
The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely
perfect (Matthew
5:48), holy (Isaiah
6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah
32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and
‘life’ (1
John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2).
When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis
1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy
32:4).
Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the
nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as
principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions
of years of death and horror before sin.)

Well, young earth creationists have a problem with animal death. According to their idea of God animal death is evil so God is evil. This is not a biblical teaching, I have talked about this before.
Only human death is evil, it is talking about spiritual death not physical death. God is still love. Besides I do not believe God is directly guiding natural selection, more he was guiding the force which influence natural selection. The next objection is not much stronger;

Danger no. 2: God becomes a God of gaps

At first this seems like the most ironic hypocritical statement I have heard coming from AiG, well lets look at their reasons, is it?

The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there
is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1
Corinthians 8:6).
However, in theistic evolution the only
workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot
‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to
being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This
leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has
evolved—He is evolution

And somehow God is not the prime cause of all things according to theistic evolution (sigh). I could do nothing but shake my head when they said that it means God is evolution. No, no, no Mr. Gitt (the name of the person writing this) according to Theistic Evolution God guides evolution he is by no means the process itself, you are the only one who is claiming such a thing. Neither does Theistic Evolution imply God is evolving, and of course according to Theistic Evolution God is the cause of all things, ever heard of the Big Bang (yes there are some who disagree I am simply making a point)? And young earth creationists seem to have a much larger problem with "gods of gaps" since they evoke God directly right and left as the with virtually everything, if you do that if a natural explanation is found you are going to create an environment where your religion contracts every time science expands, that is a religion killer.

Danger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical
Teachings
The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of
truth authored by God (2
Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’
leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway
(John
5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a
myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:

Before I let them continue I agree that the Old Testament cannot be discarded or ignored, only liberal Christians say that and I am conservative. I agree that it is the key to understanding the New Testament. And I agree that it is more then a myth, parable or allegory. This is another widespread young earth misconception. Now that we go that over with lets go on to why they think this.

--Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.

...Yes, they are, very good...Genesis 1 however is not, and besides there are times when a day doesn't always mean a day

--In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the sametime-span as described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).

And this is a good reason to interpret the word yom as day because...Anyway why could God really mean six ages and still give us the layout for a week?

--In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).

That could have just as easily been referring to the beginning of mankind and yes I agree, Man And woman evolved (or I'll say were made) both male and female.

--Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

2 Peter 3:8? And The bible has lots of facts and lots of allegory and we should be able to distinguish it using out reason, apparently you don't.

Well I was only able to make it through three of the dangers. So I don't make an inconventiently long article I am going to save the other seven for another post. There are a lot of other things to be covered. Until then, God bless. I mean that both to my fellow Christians( both theistic evolutionists, old earth creationists, and AiG fans) and atheists.

Of Reptillian humanoids and dinosaurs

2008-05-14T10:43:00.000-07:00

Is there life on other planets? Perhaps, this question is interesting but actual inquiry should never be taken beyond the scope of scientific inquiry (that's what science fiction is for). Well if there are aliens, this guy has gone one step further. He says the aliens in UFOs are dinosaurs! That's combining to species of geeks into one!

Will the UFO nuttiness ever end?

Carl Sagan explains the history of Creation

2008-05-13T21:22:00.000-07:00

Carl Sagan (1934-1996), he was an astronomer, SETI activist, Astrobiologist, and a skeptic. In this particular video he does a good job at eloquently describing history of the universe.

Carl Sagan-origins

I disagree with a lot of what he says, being an evangelical Christian I disagree with a major part of his worldview. But there are also things we have in common; we are love astronomy, we both imagined life on other planets, we both believe the Big Bang and we both generally accept most of the same science. But there is one major difference which leads to several other differences.

The difference is my belief in God.

Mr. Sagan saw the universe as the result of chance events and mishaps. He saw mankind as a highly advanced animal. He saw religion has superstition of an age past.

I see it hopefully how many Christians see it. I see the big Bang as original creation ex nihilo where God began creating the universe. I see the universe as the work of a cosmic genius.

And as for evolution, I see it as the cosmic creator's method of creation. And what is Man? From a materialist point of view Man is no more then animal. A highly evolved primate which will soon be capable of interplanetary spaceflight. But according to the Christian theistic evolutionary worldview; Man is more then that, somewhere along the way we went from being like them, the animals; brutish, dimwitted, dominated by instinct. Humanity has in this view been given the earth by its creator to live on and to steward. Humans are distinguished from all life-forms since they are made in God's image. Having sense, reason, intellect, morality, etc.

According to Theistic Evolution Humanity is not simply here because the odds were in our favor but because our existence had been planned from the very beginning. From the Big Bang our lives had been mapped out and our existence plotted. And now 14 billion years later here we are, we are only a dim reflection of the glorious resplendent jewel that is God but we are still in God's image, we were created for a purpose, and that purpose is to be a child and servant of God and to serve and love other humans.

On this planet have been given the opportunity to finish our mission; we can either use our gifts, our God-given reason and moral sense to help others, make the world a better place, improve other people's lives, and what not. Or we can squander it all for the sake of the greed, selfishness, and wickedness of the vulgar side of humanity, it is ultimately up to us.

A map of interstellar planets

2008-05-13T00:10:00.000-07:00

Some of those reading this may be familiar with planetquest, which is part of an active search by astrobiologists (and yes that is a real scientific field) for earth like planets. It is a very interesting study which in which I plan to be involved. The reason I am mentioning this is because I found a really cool 3-D map of all the stars with planets orbiting them. So far only one planet small enough to be a terrestrial planet has been found so far (most are the size of Jupiter or the gas giants). Of course one of the gas giants in the habitable zone may have a large moon which harbors some form of life.

There are also some planets which have circular orbit which might mean there is a small undetectable earth sized planet orbiting that star. You see, a Jupiter sized planet in a very eccentric (comet-like) orbit would carry off any poor unsuspecting earth like planets into the far reaches of its Solar System making it inhospitable for life. So if there are no Jupiter sized planets in eccentric orbit there might be a planet orbiting the star which is earth like or perhaps a large moon orbiting the Jupiter like planet capable of harboring life.

Many of these worlds could be future homes for our descendants

AAAS on Expelled

2008-05-03T14:39:00.000-07:00

Being that I will be out of town for the next week I will close with a comment on what my fellow evolution-supporting Christians think of Ben Stein's Expelled.

It is rather insightful, although some may think of it as old.

Solving the "Dinosaur Dilemma"

2008-05-01T22:56:00.000-07:00

About ten days ago I read an article on my friend Elles's blog. It was titled, "A preschoolers road to unbelief." She basically told about how her preschool belief in God was shattered when she could not find out why God if he were protecting the dinosaurs why he would let them go extinct (she has more complex reasons for being an atheist now of course). Well I gave what my response would have been had she asked me at that time. She replied, and soon a conversation on dinosaurs had started. Although it shifted to why did God take a 160 million year detour in evolving mammals who would become our ancestors to make giant lizards which would die off anyway. The so called "Dinosaur Dilemma" although it borders on facetious when I think about writing an article addressing it I feel it must be addressed. She has used the dino dilemma at least two times on her blog when addressing a theistic evolutionist.

Now first of all being that I don't intend to write an essay on this topic I'll try to keep this post a s short as possible.

Now to begin, lets start with a short introduction. The proto-mammals that existed for most or all of the mesozoic era (which lasted 186 million years between 251 Mya and 65 Mya) evolved from nifty creatures known as therapsids. Therapsids were mammal -like reptiles (the earliest could have been thought of as naked lizards with no hair or scales). They were mammal-like in the sense that they show signs of lactation (feeding their children mother's milk, also paleontologists have suggested it was orignally used for keeping eggs moist). The late therapsids (such as cynodonts and theriodonts) could have been easily mistaken for mammals they had hair, lactation, as well as a near-mammalian jaw and middle ear. Also some therapsids had erect limbs. Today and back then lizards have sprawling limbs (meaning their legs are spread out from their body). Today most mammals have erect limbs (meaning their limbs are direclty below their bodies supporting them like pillars on a building).

The evolution of erect limb structure was every erratic and slow, in fact mammalian evolution was quite slow. Therapsids were the dominant terrestrial lifeform in the permian period (between about 299 Mya and 251 Mya). Then about 251 million years ago, something terrible happened.

The Permian-cretaceous mass extinction, it is not agreed on what caused the mass extinction but what did happen is that 96% of sea dwelling species and 70% of land dwelling vertebrates went extinct. It was by far the worst mass extinction earth has gone through yet. This devastated the therapsids, only theriodonts, theracophalians, and cynodonts survived. All other therapsids died out. This also led to the saurapsids gaining dominance and taking over the planet, the archosaurs who include dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and plesiosaurs filled all the niches which the therapsids had previously filled reducing the therapsids to nocturnal insectivores who were often no larger then rats. Now interestingly enough the mass extinction and reptilian takeover aided mammalian evolution;

--since they were small they became warm-blooded so they could sustain their body heat in the cool of the night

--the development towards differentiated teeth with precise occlusion (the arches of the teeth coming together in symmetry) was given a boost because they needed to be able to catch arthropods and crush their exoskeletons.

--an acute sense of hearing and smell became more necessary so as a result the mammalian ear evolved faster then it otherwise would have.

--and the evolution of the mammalian skull was accelerated as a whole.

--Because the jawbones came together further forward on the skull this allowed for less restriction on brain siz allowing the brain to become larger.

After this one of the survivors, the cynodonts, ended up being the ancestors of all mammals today. Cynodonts survived into the mid-cretaceaous period, by the end it had all the characteristics of a mammal. The small bones which are in located in the jaw in reptiles were in its ear (as expected in mammals), it had fur, and it had more mammalian dentistry. It still layed eggs however (which monotremes, or egg-laying mammals still do). Of course this isn't the end of it. The first true mammals did not appear until 125 Mya, and when they did they were marsupials (meaning their offspring were born in pouches). now this was a step but they were not the mammals that would lead to us. The next mammals to evolve were none other then placental mammals (I'll let you guess what those are). And guess what species relevant to humans is a placental mammal; humans themselves. Placental mammals began to diversify 110 Mya splitting off into different groups, then 65 Mya something strangely wonderful happened. It is bad because it was another mass extinction; but this time dinosaurs, plesiosaurs, and pterosaurs (and pretty much anything larger then a house-cat) went extinct. This was was sadly fantastic because now the newly evolved mammals took over and ten million years later they dominated the earth. One group of these mammals inhabited the trees and developed intelligence, then 5 Mya one group broke of and became hominids which led to us (according to the evolutionary theory).

Do you see it? Do you see the hand of God? If the permian extinction had not occurred mammal evolution would have taken much longer, or mammals may have never evolved, then humans would have never arrived. God sent the permian-cretaceous extinction event to speed up mammal evolution and then the cretaceous-tertiary extinction event to allow mammals to populate the earth and lead the way to us, then he revealed himself to us making us in his own image.

Thank God for evolution.

I have been accused of being a fake Christian!

2008-04-30T14:10:00.000-07:00

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
human
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)

Expelled, a review from theistic evolutionist's perspective

2008-04-29T21:38:00.000-07:00

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
Washington, 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 (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), 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
College.
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.
An
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
That
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: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2612 and http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue09/index.shtml#rare_sun).
According
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
Insolence."
--

"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
wrong.
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
Arrogance. 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
Scientists
--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.

"10 questions every intelligent Christian must answer" answered!

2008-04-25T12:12:00.000-07:00

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.

Restated statement of faith

2008-04-24T08:46:00.000-07:00

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;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678The
first video Ben Stein butchers the term evolution (or Darwinism). Now although
Darwinism is an actual
concept, 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...

Launching the skepticologists

2008-04-22T14:08:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-22T11:55:00.000-07:00

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
19:4-5 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
3:5 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
3:29 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
5:12 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
true.
NOTE: I don't know why its making that weird structure, I can't correct it.

Answers In Genesis on the fused chromosomes

2008-04-21T11:47:00.000-07:00

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 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/tale-of-two-chromosomes,
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
made.
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
against.
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,
Ken

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.

String theory?

2008-04-20T21:08:00.000-07:00

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.

My first post on this blog

2008-04-19T14:02:00.000-07:00

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.