Posts Tagged by Creationism
|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 11, 2009||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Bible Reliability, Blog, Creationism, evolution, General, intelligent design, scientism, Secular Humanism|
I have already addressed this in several places- here, and here- so I won’t dwell on things much. Instead, I want to reflect on an article I just read regarding the Vatican participating in an astrobiology conference to discuss the question.
In my previous posts, I argued that if aliens appeared, they might fly in the face of current expectations that are drenched in an evolutionary (and atheistic) outlook. Namely, we may find that these intelligent agents believe in God. They may not, as Richard Dawkins smugly posits, inquire first as to whether not humans have ‘discovered’ evolution. Let us allow that it is a possibility… but they may also possibly have a concept of God and creation that is identical, in theological principle, to what we see in the Christian Scriptures. Naturally, they may have a belief system identical to other systems.
My point is that they may deviate a great deal from the common narrative of aliens either being hostile consumers of resources or super-intelligent, highly technological and benevolent agents that have transcended petty human foibles and myths. In this narrative, both sides assume not just evolution but atheistic presuppositions.
|May 6, 2009||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, evolution, General, Global Warming, scientism|
|March 11, 2009||Posted by Anthony under atheism, Blog, evolution, General, theism, theology|
What I really wanted to address was the ramifications and implications of discovering conclusive proof of an extraterrestial intelligent agent relative to Christian theism.
Already you should be chuckling, because if the atheists are to be believed, it is not scientifically possible to reliably detect intelligent agency. Intelligent Design, we are assured, is pseudoscience at best and closet creationism at worst. On this view I suppose space aliens could land in Richard Dawkins lap at which time they begin wheeling out some of their rumored probes, and Mr. Dawkins would be unable to recognize that something out of the ordinary was happening. Anyway, as funny and as fun as that thought is, I have no doubt that hard core philosophical naturalists will have little trouble ‘reliably detecting intelligent design’ when the chips are down.
I think this is because they will expect these little green critters with big skulls to support them in their atheistic worldview. But I think that will be the atheist’s undoing. They would have been safer denying that a sentient being is conversing with them because what that sentient being actually says might compromise the atheist’s philosophical foundations.
|November 29, 2008||Posted by Anthony under Blog, General|
Ironically, Plimer sees similarities between global warming proponents and creationists, when he really should see similarities between global warming proponents and evolutionists. The creationist example is wholly inapt even on his own terms- by his view, creationism is based on ‘holy books’ but global warming, we are told, is backed by hard, irrefutable science. And I would be willing to say that global warming probably is backed by ‘hard, irrefutable science’ … when by ‘science’ we mean the bastardized and philosophically driven ‘methodology’ that passes as science today in contrast to true science which actually relies on empirical demonstration.
|April 18, 2008||Posted by Anthony under Blog, General|