|April 24, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, Creationism, evolution, General, intelligent design, scientism, theology|
This article discussing emerging church staff positions crossed my desk and caught my attention. According to the article, prevailing trends in society and in the Church (Institutional) we can see these positions being developed or created:
The Network Administrator
The Multicultural Children’s Director
The Chief of Staff
The Operations Pastor
The Creative Arts Director
The Boomer Director
The Spiritual Growth Pastor
I think this list, though not portrayed as comprehensive, is probably pretty accurate. Given my background, I noticed that one position is not mentioned: Apologetics Director. I think that is pretty accurate, too.
I find this to be pretty interesting and indicative of the state of the Church, Inc. today. Not to take away anything from the positions mentioned above or positions that may already exist, but we live in a society where Christianity is being deliberately attacked at a number of levels. At the same time, the culture itself represents challenges to Christianity less intentionally, in the form of hundreds and even thousands of new world views for Christians to encounter and have to deal with.
|March 25, 2010||Posted by Anthony under Antony Flew, apologetics, atheism, Blog, Creationism, evolution, General, philosophy, science, scientism, Secular Humanism|
# In order for something to be considered robust science, it needs to be falsifiable.
# Modern evolutionary theory is usually presented so that it entails unintelligent operations.
# To falsify the claim that something is driven by unintelligent forces one would have to show how intelligent forces were at work.
# Evolutionary apologists insist (with heapings of derision) that such a showing is outside the bounds of science.
# But if showing design is outside the bounds of science than there is no reliable and objective way to conclude scientifically that something is not designed.
# Therefore, macroevolutionary theory cannot be scientifically falsified at the point that it is the result of unguided natural processes since they reject as unscientific the very things that could falsify it.
|March 24, 2010||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, Blog, Christianity and Culture, eugenics, evolution, General, Holocaust, human rights, Jesus, Love, Malthusians, morality, Obama, Papers, politics, pro-life, scientism, Secular Humanism, theology|
“the “right” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate morality. The “left” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate compassion. Both approaches fail miserably and are an abdication of our responsibility to be the voice, hands and feet of Jesus in this world.” – spoken by a friend.
Someone slid this article across my desk that inquires as to why evangelical Christians are against universal health care. Now, strictly speaking, I’m not an evangelical. Also, I don’t think that all Christians oppose universal health care, and I will not presume that Christians who do will share all my reasons. I hope this caveat spares me the litany of comments accusing me of ‘generalizing.’
I will take the article as my foil as it is one of the finest expressions of liberal hubris and arrogance that I’ve seen in a while. The author begins by indicating he seriously wanted to know why Christians who are supposed to be all about love would oppose health care. The end includes a long screed:
(p.s. this opinion is reserved for those Christians who have not actually thought about the consequences, and decided that more people are harmed than helped by the new law. They are being consistent with their beliefs. That being said, if you think you are in that camp of people excluded, you probably aren’t. You probably are just being geedy, selfish and jerkish, but convincing yourself that this is why you oppose it, while the truth remains you just dont want taxed, or adhere to some abstract notion of how this bill is UnGodly).
|February 5, 2010||Posted by Anthony under abortion, Blog, human rights, Malthusians, morality, pro-life, Secular Humanism|
There is just something about this Tebow Superbowl ad that seems to have really gotten under the skins of the pro-abortionist groups like Planned Parenthood and others. I think its because they perceive that their whole agenda has been called out and they were left rocking backwards on their heels. A lot of the pro-choice groups are crying foul that we have to be ‘exposed’ to something as damnable as a story about a mother who was advised to have an abortion… but chose not to… in “contravention doctors’ orders” (ala Rachel Maddow).
Apparently, such divisive matters should not be presented to us during the Superbowl… far better to focus on what unites us: clever beer commercials and scantily clad women and the occasional wardrobe malfunction.
I was recently invited to be a columnist on a Christian news site called the CypressTimes. One of my first articles was on this very topic.
|January 22, 2010||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, atheism, Blog, eugenics, General, Global Warming, human rights, Malthusians, Obama, pro-life, scientism, Secular Humanism|
So what? They are sick. Who cares? Well, while it probably turns the stomach of the average American to think that what Haiti really needs now is abortion technology and won’t pay a dime to support Planned Parenthood’s operations, in fact the average American is already responsible for doing just that: they elected Barack Obama, who, in one of his first acts as new president, restored United States funding of the UNFPA. Moreover, our tax dollars support Planned Parenthood.
It is a bizarre irony that generous Americans are working so hard to help the people of Haiti and suffering people all over the globe while at the same time the American government is working hard to fund organizations that believe that it is better for us all if there were fewer of these people to begin with.
|January 19, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, evolution, General, Global Warming, scientism, Secular Humanism|
Richard Dawkins, Richard Carrier, Dan Barker, Austin Cline. I add this to cap off the general lesson that I would like to draw here, as the four names I have listed here are prominent atheistic spokespersons: atheists are not the vanguards of reason that they would like us to believe they are; they make mistakes just like everyone else, and no one should think that they are above being too proud to admit it when they are. These examples I have given are minor in the grand scheme of things but I submit that they illustrate why no one should ever defer thinking to anyone else, regardless of how smart they insist they are, how many degrees they have, how high their IQ is, or even if they currently represent the consensus position on a topic, be it evolution, global warming, climate change, etc, etc, etc, etc.
The intellectual elite which I have called out in this post answer to a higher standard and I hope that this post will elicit some acknowledgment that their arguments are not always as rock solid as they suggest. I predict quite the opposite, so again: remember in your skepticism to be skeptical too of the skeptics.
|November 29, 2009||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, creation, Creationism, evolution, General, Global Warming, intelligent design, science, scientism|
From US Congressional Committee Report: INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN (full report):
In a series of emails on August 30, Dr. Ferrari and Dr. Sues discussed the Smithsonian’s procedures for hiring and firing a Research Associate and how Dr. Sternberg was approved for his RA position. Sues lamented that “The Sternberg situation could not have been prevented by senior management because his CV looks credible and does not reveal his interactions with the creationist movement.”44 Dr. Sues seemed to be suggesting that if Sternberg’s supposed interactions with the “creationist movement” were known, he would not have been approved as an RA, and the “situation” would have been prevented. [More...]
Dr. Ferrari’s comments also suggested a very real bias in the selection process: “I wonder, however, if we might consider a more open process of vetting nominees? For example, while a post doc here Sternberg was listed in an advertisement in the NY Times as a scientist at the Smithsonian Institution who did not believe in evolution. I saw that page and certainly would have spoken up had I known he was a prospective research associate.”45 Ferrari seemed to be suggesting that questioning evolution would disqualify a candidate for a position.