The “H” in Evolution(ists)

Evolutionists say it is a fact that all of biology just happened to arise by accident, and they harshly criticize those who do not agree. But with amazing consistency their criticism is hypocritical—it applies to evolutionary thinking. Consider this recent paper about creationist movements:

In summary, while creationism has evolved diverse labels and strategies for legal and rhetorical purposes, its fundamental essence remains unchanged. That essence is advocacy of miraculous divine intervention, i.e., special creation, in the history of life, and the claim that science must acknowledge special creation or dire consequences for society will follow.

Dire consequences for society? This is precisely the sort of rhetoric used by evolutionists. Skepticism is routinely characterized as anti-science. Diseases will flourish and crops will fall prey to insects without evolution to guide our science. Indeed, the very premise of this paper is that evolution skepticism must be countered. It is a hazard which seeks to return the world to centuries past.

And the fundamental essence of evolution has remained unchanged for centuries. Passages from Lucretius read like modern evolutionary writings. And more recently, the urgings of Enlightenment thinkers laid the groundwork for Darwin and can be found throughout the post-Darwin literature. The essence is the rejection of miraculous divine intervention for a variety of religious and metaphysical reasons. They are repeated ad nauseam today as though they are scientific findings, but they are no different than the evolutionary genre from ... Read more

Morality: Natural or Supernatural?

In keeping with our discussion of morality from the last post. I just found out that our friend Mariano over at "Atheism is Dead", that is now True Freethinker, debated with an Atheist named Michael Sizer. A smart discussion that may be interesting to you. Grab a cold lemon-aid, and also in my case a dictionary, and enjoy a good conversation.

I thought it was misleading to say that, because the anterior cingulate cortex shows activity, morality must comes from the brain. An indicator of brain activity is merely that. An indicator, not origins. One can make the case that we see, breath, and hear with our brain also, using that analogy. That to me, would be a lazy explanation. The real question is what is the origins of morality, Mariano does a fine job of addressing that question.

I especially 'loved' the, quite clinical Hamilton's rule reasoning, actually the subsequent explanation, as to self sacrifice. That is what is the problem here and, for me, is what centered the debate. Science, clinical and passionless, doesn't suffice. Well played Mariano.

Morality: Natural or Supernatural? I think the answer is clear.

If you are watching this in Youtube. Resist clicking on the little soccer ball in the bottom right corner when you hear something that you do not agree with. You might miss something important.

S.A.C.S. of Cowardice

Apparently, The Institute for Creation Research, who funded the R.A.T.E project, received a punishing gut punch in the school yard that left everyone wincing.

The Institute for Creation Research's graduate school, which is based in California, has been offering master's degrees since 1981 accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools.

Recently they packed up and moved away from Beverly, Hills that is, to Texas to sweat in upper 90% humidity daily. Unfortunately that decision backfired because they were denied to offer masters degrees.

The hurdle that ICR needed to get over is The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, unfortunately they received a pit bull equivalent of pressure from the yelping hyena atheists of the scientific world to not approve ICR's application to allow the Institute to offer master's degrees in science education in Texas. Apparently, this was the Atheists Alamo. Of course, like most educational institutes in the U.S., those S.A.C.S. of cowardice, caved in to the atheistic pressure and gave a denial to ICR.

It is completely understandable, since other universities all over the planet can certainly offer Master's degrees all day long as long as it is secular, science fiction, and not Creationism.

As an example, Cornell University, a highly accredited university in the atheist friendly state of New York has their Physics department loaded with science fiction teachings.

Wha, wha? Don't worry little birds, I'll feed you.

Cornell University's Physics department has 140 articles on Multiverses. That's right, the fictional postulation of multiple universes (oxymoron?) is being taught, and promoted, in our schools to "explain away" the precession of this finely tuned universe. Currently the most popular of the physics explanations called "string theory" predicts a large number of possible universes.

Multiverses is not science at all because no testable predictions can be made. Its not testable, repeatable, and verifiable. The real kick in the rear is that is what is claimed, by atheists, about Intelligent Design! Are you kidding me? Certainly not a Creator, no way!

Richard Dawkins even maintains that an alien designer or designers are more plausible than a supernatural designer because there is a known mechanism to produce them. He calls it the "crane of natural selection". Creator? Never!

So, I think we all understand why this happened. A Creator cannot, and will not, be entertained in any way, in a university setting as a hypothesis, or theory, or anything else academically because that would bring an entire accountability factor to the table.

Something that cannot be tolerated. Much like an Ostrage does when frightened, the atheists are scared of that privately funded outcome.

"Are they gone yet?" Never!

bit.ly/sacsof

California Science Center Supports Creationism!!

On 10/9/09 I wrote an email to:

California Science Center,

Please allow the showing of "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record." We were going to take our children to see it. Why would you discriminate like this? We will be blogging about this and maybe take action since this is a clear violation of the freedom of speech and equal protection. I cannot believe you would allow a small group censor you like this. Is this still America?

Are you afraid of truth? Are you afraid of a perspective other then your own? Are your viewpoints that unstable that a little movie could derail your presuppositions or worldview? What are you afraid of?

Please reconsider,
Dan

Today I found out that:

California Science Center to Pay Attorneys' Fees and Settle Open Records Lawsuit by Intelligent Design Group

The California Science Center (CSC) has agreed to settle a lawsuit with the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute and release records that it previously sought to conceal regarding its cancellation of the screening of a pro-intelligent design film last year.

"After months of stonewalling by the Science Center, this is a huge victory for the public’s right to know what their government is doing, especially when the government engages in illegal censorship and viewpoint discrimination," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

The Science Center continues to "deny any and all liability relating to the claims," according to the settlement agreement. However, it agreed to pay Discovery Institute’s legal fees and to surrender more than a thousand pages of documents it had been withholding since they were requested under the California Public Records Act last year.

Documents to be released relate to... (Read More)

Oil, Fossil Fuel?

In light of BP Oil being a complete failure with the top brass CEO, Tony Hayward, (future PR expert) cruising around on his Yacht on the oil free ocean, I suppose taking advantage of some much deserved down time this weekend, I wanted to point out the counter for the current evolutionary spin on oil.

What may be spewing into the Gulf currently is called Abiotic Oil

This information on the heals of finding out that BP is in bed with Russia, who is now the top oil producer. (Commodity Online)

Wasn't it a Russian Professor that wanted to split the US up anyway? I digress.

The claim that Oil is a 'fossil fuel' may not be the case at all. The postulation that oil is actually rotting dinosaurs (reason for lost transitional fossils? How convenient!) and plant matter, magically transforming over millions/billions of years into oil is erroneous.

In chemistry, organic means chemical compounds with carbon in them. In a more general sense, organic refers to living things. Just because a certain material is referred to as organic does not mean it is or ever was alive.

t.me/EARTH20GENESIS/4868

Maybe, presupposing evolution resulted in this "fossil" fuel mistake? Do you now see the dangers of placing evolution as the paradigm instead of letting the evidence speak for itself?

Supporting Evidence for Abiotic Oil, briefly, is that Oil being discovered at 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet, where organic matter is no longer found. Wells pumped dry are later replenished. Gives a whole new meaning to "Gulf Oil" now. Plus, this research apparently shows that it does not take an excessively long time, millions of years, to produce oil. More evidence of a young earth? Also, the volume of oil pumped thus far not accountable from organic material alone according to present models.

"Scientists in the US have witnessed the production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms as conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than previously thought." (Physics World)

NASA is noticing this might be the case on Titus also. According to SpaceRef.com "The origin of methane in Titan's atmosphere is a mystery because it gets broken down by sunlight and particle radiation from space in the upper atmosphere. If surface lakes and pools were the only source, all of Titan's methane would be lost by this mechanism in less than a hundred million years, a short time for a moon that's been around since the formation of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago."

"Abiotic oil is created by intense pressures on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur. The sort of pressures required to create oil are natural as one gets down a certain depth under the heavy crust and in the upper layers of the mantle. In some ways oil is the natural lubrication system for the crust and the upper layers of the mantle as it shifts and orbits the planet's core." (SDAI-Tech1)

Now the myth of peak oil and energy crisis is upon us, I am sure there are those that believe it as the gospel truth, but like the evolution paradigm, I just don't buy it.

Well, we can thank BP for helping us get multicolored rain, you know, for the children.

Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. (Hedges)

If we reexamine this paradigm that everything must be a slow process, that takes millions/billions of years, maybe we would get more accurate results from the data. Oh secularists, when will you ever learn? Darwin is not god. God is.

UPDATE: Coincidence or Judgment? Spill is Obama's fault.



Update Deux:

Science confirms what we said years ago. Fossil fuel does not come from fossils after all. Silly evolutionary paradigm that muddies the water again.

"We observed the operation of a natural refinery of petroleum of gigantic size", said astronomer Jérôme Pety. ~Daily Galaxy

-
bit.ly/Abioticoil

Self Esteem Movement

I commented on another post and I thought I would just add it here to make another point.

In short, Josh believes that self-deprecating mentality leads to arrogance.

I responded by asking if he has any evidence of that bare assertion at all.

He did bring up an excellent subject that I would like to drive home though. I will go on tangents but I will get to point soon.

There is a movement that is called the "self esteem movement" (just Google it) and it is riddled throughout our school systems and secular teachings.

Like teachers writing on the chalk board in school “Nil Carborundum Bastardii” (Don’t let the bastards grind you down), it is very detrimental to one self but not the way that you think.

As an example, I don't know if you have ever watched American Idol. You see these kids "writing off" and cussing at Simon who honestly told them they are horrible, which was the truth. They get all huffy and go back to their moms who say "it's OK baby, you are the best" and they storm off cussing profanity to the camera and Simon.

It was Scott Peterson's mom Jackie who raised him in a way to let him think that he could do no wrong and you obviously see how destructive that was. She was very open about it also. Jackie Peterson held Scott up as her 'golden boy' that could do no wrong. She didn't show love towards the boy. If he did something wrong she covered it up for him instead of reprimanding him. She raised him to have "high self esteem"

Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:17-18 tells us how to treat people. It takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation, perfect love is a constant confronter. Coddling someone, like Jackie did, is not love at all. I believe God holds us accountable to our actions as it states in Ezekiel 3:20.

Most people don't realize this but bullies, most often, have very high self esteem. They are viewed as "cool kids" and destroy many lives in their growth.

"In contrast to a fairly common assumption among psychologists and psychiatrists, we have found no indicators that the aggressive bullies are anxious and insecure under a tough surface" (source)

"From early on, the bully can do whatever he wants without clear consequences and discipline." (source)

Today parents are raising pure monsters and our society is paying the price for it.

Kids need discipline and guidance in truth. Not some inflated self esteem that goes unchecked.

I am sure you have heard the term inflated ego. Swollen heads are what makes people fall hard after they have been popped by life's challenges. To be humble is a very good thing and it will keep you grounded in life, so know thyself (Proverbs 27:1, James 4:10, 1 Peter 5:6), and stay on the ground.

bit.ly/SelfEsteem

Atheists Assume Morality

Recently, I just read a good article by Dr. Chad Meister that spoke about atheists quest for objective morality.

In his article Dr. Meister used the example of turning on a light switch. One could know that flipping the switch makes the lights go on and have absolutely no understanding as to why the switch goes on, or justification for how it really does so.

There is a huge difference between doing right or wrong and justifying right and wrong.

Meister states, "By arguing for a belief in or knowledge of morality without providing a justification for morality, atheists confuse moral epistemology (moral knowledge) with moral ontology (foundation existence of morality)."

Here is the real question: What grounds the atheists' moral position? What makes their moral views more then mere hunches, inklings, or subjective opinions? Explain all of mankind's intuitive sense of right and wrong. 

Remember what Ted Bundy said?

"Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself–what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself–that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring–the strength of character–to throw off its shackles…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure that I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me–after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited." --Ted Bundy, cited in Louis P. Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 3rd edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson, 1999), 31-32.

The question to atheists is simply:

On what moral grounds can you provide a response to Bundy?

If right and wrong are provincial, cultural inventions, as a few of you postulate, then it would always be wrong for someone within that culture to speak out against them. If culture defines right and wrong, then who are you to challenge it? To speak out against something that is culturally acceptable, like slavery, would be morally wrong. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, or even Jesus would have been wrong.

The article didn't mention this but some atheists believe that what is moral is what minimizes suffering of others. So if society determines that molesting children is merely a $20 fine to lessen the 'suffering,' and possible retaliation towards the individual being imprisoned, would it be wrong? Are all societal laws right? Why did our Founding Fathers feel that it would be wrong to have a Democratic society?

At the very least, we are thankful that most atheists agree that moral relativism is doomed. Even Sam Harris recognizes the inherent dangers, and speaks against, moral relativism in his book "The End of Faith" but curiously he doesn't tell us what his moral theory is.

Now, most of the atheists here that I talk to use the morality 'just is' explanation instead of the 'selfish gene' that Richard Dawkins uses, something is good because our genes tell us it is. Morality, on this view, is something most of us believe in, follow, and practice, even though it doesn't exist in reality; its just an illusion foisted on us via evolution so that we don't kill ourselves off as a species. There is no objective right and wrong on these views though.

As we established, being moral and having a reasonable foundation or justification for being moral are two very different issues. Back to the example, we can "function well in society flipping light switches and never even entertaining the idea that electricity is involved in the process of causing the lights to turn on"

If asked what for a justification for the lights going on when the switch is flipped, is the answer simply, "they just do"? This is no answer at all.

The fact is, flow of an electric charge (among other factors) grounds our explanation for the lights going on. This is what give us "an ontological basis for being 'light-switching flippers.' The same applies to morality and God."

One may be able to deny God's existence and still live a moral life,(flipping switches) but there would be no fundamental basis, no objective moral grounding, for such a life. Plus, there would be no answer for Bundy.



Meister puts the atheist's problem concisely:

1. If moral notions such as good and evil exist objectively, then there must be an objective foundation for their existence.
2. Atheism offers no objective basis for the existence of moral notions such as good and evil.
3. Therefore, for the atheist, moral notions such as good and evil must not objectively exist.

"On their worldview, we are merely evolved brutes whose very existence is derived from the naturalistic laws of evolution, including random mutation and survival of the fittest in which the strong survive and the weak die off (and sometimes the strong kill off the weak in their struggle for survival) We are simply byproducts of a "nature red in tooth and claw" to quote Tennyson. Is it any wonder that the atheistic regimes of Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and Pol Pot-- devoid as they were of any significant Christian influence-- were responsible for the mass murder of over 100 million people in their quest for dominance, more lives destroyed then in all of the religious wars in the history of the human race? These regimes were not discordant with an atheistic basis of morality; they were consistent with it."

"Christian morality, rooted as it is in transcendent, personal, omni-benevolent God, has truly been good for this world. Heaven help us if an atheistic morality, rooted in evolutionary theory or otherwise, should ever become the guiding moral force on a global scale."

But Meister, keep in mind according to the Bible, global atheistic morality will happen very soon.

We have an explanation as to the why the absoluteness of truth exist. Our Christian worldview does indeed "account" for absolute truth and morality, atheism cannot and does not, so logically atheism is illogical.
 


 

bit.ly/assmorals

Financial Friday

The video explains the world financial crisis in 3 minutes, its well worth your time.

Pretty relevant in view of the Dow today, 9,918.67 -340.99 (-3.33%)

Update: The entertainment continues with,

Greece: socialism's ideal