Category: Global Warming
|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.
|November 24, 2009||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, Creationism, evolution, Global Warming, science, scientism|
The Internet is abuzz with the revelations that global warming proponents have been… lying, hiding data, and deceiving. The whole notion that ‘climate change’ is an emergency requiring drastic and immediate action now hangs in the balance. I was reminded of a post I wrote last year responding to a global warming skeptic comparing the global warming proponents to creationists. I said that in fact it was the other way around. Today, with ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ in particular being smacked around, it is good to revisit the issue.
Because the raw fact is that the ‘science’ behind global warming is just as shady as the ‘science’ behind macroevolution. Just as we see in this current case where scientists worked not merely to suppress data but also suppress viewpoints, trying to manipulate the peer review process to exclude dissenters and refusing to debate them in order to deprive them of credibility, so too in evolution.
This was exposed by Ben Stein’s Expelled, which I already discussed here.
But there are even more dramatic similarities between the ‘science’ behind evolutionary theory and global warming. It is my hope that when people see how reputable scientists tried to buffalo the entire world, hiding behind ‘consensus,’ and ridiculing those who think other wise- regarding global warming- that they will spot the same patterns of behavior regarding evolution… and approach it with more skepticism.
|November 5, 2009||Posted by Anthony under abortion, atheism, Blog, eugenics, evolution, General, Global Warming, Holocaust, human rights, morality, pro-life, scientism, Secular Humanism|
Apparently a gent named Michael Laws, a politician in New Zealand, has advocated that the solution to child abuse and neglect is to pay the ‘underclass’ not to have children; this would be accomplished by $10,000 and sterilization.
This is a perfect example of the Malthusian Mind that I discussed in my Worldnetdaily.com column not too long ago, Christians Beware the Malthusian Mind. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111412
He writes, “it would be far better for this appalling underclass to be offered financial inducements not to have children, given the toxic environment that they would provide for any child in their care.”
Critics repudiate his position later in the article, saying, “It’s hard to comprehend that an intelligent man who’s leading a city is making such reprehensible suggestions.”
Ha! I find it ‘hard to comprehend that an intelligent man’ who is Obama’s Science ‘czar’ (John Holdren) has made even worse suggestions!
The ‘mark’ of the Malthusian Mind is simply that they leap to eliminative solutions almost by instinct.
|September 30, 2009||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, Blog, Christianity and Culture, End Times, eugenics, evolution, General, Global Warming, Holocaust, morality, Obama, scientism, Secular Humanism|
Today Worldnetdaily.com published a second column of mine. Title: Christians Beware the Malthusian Mind!
Jesus said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”
Thomas Robert Malthus would have disagreed. The philosophical forerunner to Darwin, Malthus argued that there are limited resources, and competition for them is intense. When there are too many people competing for those resources, you have war, famine and a continual threat to civilization itself.
For Malthus, the pie is only so big: We must reduce the number of people who want a share of it.
Christianity embodies another solution: Make a bigger pie.
In Christianity, God takes a few loaves and feeds thousands with them. Entrance to heaven is not contingent on space available. Jesus came that we would have life, and life to the fullest. Not just for some, but all.
None of what follows is an argument for Christian indifference to the plight of other people. However, Christians should not advocate “solutions” that repress human liberty, dignity and freedom. For some reason, all of the Malthusian’s solutions do just that.
Read the whole column on Malthus and Malthusians.
|May 12, 2009||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, Blog, Global Warming, theism|
I discovered today that a post a couple of weeks ago about Christians and the environment popped up on a Christian environmentalist blog. My post was ‘Shouldn’t Christians Care about the Environment?” and the brief response (if it was a response at all) was called ‘Self-interest makes Christians better ecologists.’
I actually couldn’t tell from the entry whether or not the blogger agreed or disagreed with my post. There is only one sentence: “Anthony suggests that the reason Christians make better ecologists is that they put people first.”
This isn’t much to go on but there was still something about it that compelled me to reply.