Category: scientism

A couple of books to review

I received in the mail today two books to review… reminding me I’ve got a review or two yet to write! Argh!

To whet your appetite, let me say that both of these books appear to be solid and their respective websites look worthy of your investigation.

The first book is Rational Conclusions by James D. Agresti. This appears to be a thorough and cumulative apologetic for Christianity drawn from multiple disciplines. His website is www.justfacts.com. Find the book on Amazon, here.

The next book, by Dr. Edgar Andrews, is called Who Made God: Searching for a Theory of Everything. Pick it up on Amazon. I always like it when scientists step it up against other ‘scientists.’

——————————–

I was feeling a bit like a heel for not having gotten to the other reviews of books that have been sent my way that I ran down and grabbed them so I could at least get some links their way. It’s the least I can do, I reckon

Share

You are not as smart as you think you are- your brain is smarter than all the computers of the world

Note: this post cannot be construed as offensive in anyway as it is the product of random chance and natural selection. It just popped here on this blog as a whim of the universe. The blog, of course itself being a whim of the universe. So, if you are angry at this analysis, you should wonder why. You may as well be angry with a pile of rocks for being in the configuration that they are in.

It’s true that I have picked on Tipoo, a complete stranger, based on scant background on him and his positions. But on the evolutionary viewpoint there is no real standard of morality, so it cannot be said that this was really wrong.

At any rate, the truth is that I have seen a thousand ‘Tipoos’ of which he was merely representative and when I read it this time I was just in the right mood to take issue with the ‘new atheist’ manner he seems to be exuding.

Share

Social Issues and Economics Go Hand in Hand

Worldnetdaily.com published a column I wrote.  Read the whole thing. Apparently, a letter has been written to GOP leaders by conservative homosexuals and some tea-party activists requesting that the GOP lay off its traditional pro-life stance. That would be horrible for many reasons. One reason: In actuality, de-emphasizing life issues is a threat to conservative […]

Share

Introduction to Ayn Rand’s Anthem Excerpt

The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one’s eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: ”But I didn’t mean this!”

Share

Knights of Contention Recording 10/26

Here is the recording of the second Knight of Contention: http://connectpro58388802.na5.acrobat.com/p35642882/ Fun was had by all.  I think you could call it lively! Taking suggestions on future KoC debate topics.  The next one will be next week, Nov. 9.

Share

People for the Ethical Treatment of Video (PETV)

A few weeks ago, James Jay Lee stormed the Discovery Channel network. There was a man who understood the power of video. In his screed, published online, he decried the shows “encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions.” Instead, he argued, Discovery should push “programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility.”

James Jay Lee was in a desperate spot. He knew that the fate of the planet hung in the balance. The earth, literally, needed saving. The people who knew this best were actually fueling the death of the earth. He wrote: “You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!” (Emphasis his)

And how did Mr. Lee come to this startling revelation? In other online writings he indicated that he had been ‘awakened’ by Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Share

A Call to Churches to Create Careers in Apologetics

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.

Share

I am my child’s advocate; you aren’t.

I am my child’s advocate.

He cannot speak for himself. She cannot understand the issues. Yet the choices we make today will impact them forever. I know my children. I know the issues. You are not my child’s advocate. I am.

You are quite certain my child should be socialized according to your dictates.

For thousands of years civilization got along just great without your professional opinion.

If I choose to make use of your services, it is as my instrument exerting my authority as my child’s advocate. My family is not the arbitrary tool of the state to achieve the state’s ends. My family uses the state- or doesn’t- as its tool. I dispense with it as I determine.

Turn your own family into a machination of the state. Leave mine alone.

I am my child’s advocate.

Share

Methodological Naturalism, Falsifiability, and Evolution: A Challenge

# 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.

Share

Why Christians are against Universal Health Care

“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).

Share

Planned Parenthood And Their Hypocritical Concern for Haiti

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.

Share

The Silence of the Wolves: Atheists Turn Docile in Face of the Facts

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.

Share

Climategate to be followed by Evolutiongate?

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.

Share

Global Warming Fraud Uses Same Scientific Method as Evolution

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.

Why?

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.

Share
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next