Ron Paul 2012

"Only in America - someone who supports peace over war, is labeled as an "extremist".

Only in America - someone who will end war on drugs, and release majority of blacks from prison, back to their families & kids, is labeled as "Racist".

Only in America - someone who will bring an end to never ending inflation, boom and bust business cycles, is labeled as naive in monetary policies

Only in America - someone who gets more contributions from vets, than all other candidates combined, is labeled isolationist

Only in America - someone who puts America before Israel is labelled as anti-semitic.

Yes my friends - that's how media, owned by Big Corporations and Wall Street is trying to steal our future.

The one I am for is Ron Paul in 2012---Awesome" ~United States Marine Jason Thompson

Backsliding Atheist

Over at Vox Day's place, writer of The Irrational Atheist, he shares with us an ex-Atheist who explains his story of an intellectual journey towards the rational. Interesting.

A promising "Vox" day.

Psst, do yourself a favor and go read The Irrational Atheist for free even.

Free eBook: Signature of Controversy

I received, in an email, an invitation to review a new eBook called "Signature of Controversy". I was going to read it before posting it but I see Brian has posted it, so I might as well also.

Signature of Controversy is a free eBook with contributions by David Berlinski, David Klinghoffer, Casey Luskin, Paul Nelson, Jay Richards, Richard Sternberg and Stephen Meyer. It contains responses critics of Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell.

Download the PDF ebook here. (expires soon)

Enjoy.

Check out more Stephen Meyer resources here. Including the full mp3 audio of the book, Signature in the Cell.

Hat tip to Apologetics315.

Also, if you care, you could join the online interview being offered.

The Bible, Bunch of Fairy Tales

Oh, how many time have I heard from Atheists that the Bible is just a bunch of Fairy Tales...

“Have you ever heard of anyone in history being imprisoned or executed for distributing copies of Grimm’s fairy tales? What would you say if you’d heard that copies of The Iliad and The Odyssey had been banned in Saudi Arabia and North Korea? Imagine people trying to smuggle copies of Hans Christian Andersen’s works into China? Such ideas are comical, but the Bible, which has been called a mere collection of myths and fairy tales, has suffered all of these fates. Throughout history and even today, copies of the Bible are banned and burned, and those possessing it are persecuted and imprisoned. There’s something about this ancient book that threatens and frightens those in power, especially those who use power to oppress people weaker than themselves. And they have every reason to be frightened.”

Eric Metaxas, Everything You Always Wanted to Know about God (Colorado Springs, 2005), page 155.

bit.ly/Biblefairytales

Ask And You Shall Receive...BIO-Complexity

Dr. Dembski at Uncommon Decent alerted us to a group that is undertaking a new endeavor.

I cannot tell you how many Atheists have asked for real peer reviewed scientific papers on Biblical Creation or the lesser, Intelligent Design. Many Atheists I know, religiously, rely on science as their ONLY source of life's questions.

Well my friends, this year introduces the new:

BIO-Complexity

From their Purpose link:

"BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life."

Young-earth creationists (YECs) and the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) are natural allies in many ways, although we have major differences as well. There is a distinct difference between what I believe, as a Young Earth Creationist, and what proponents of Intelligent Design believe, mainly IDM avoids appealing to the Bible as authoritative "special revelation".

Things for us all to look for are, for example, in the condition of complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems where the Creation Model espouses that inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection. The Evolutionary Model espouses that it increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years and both are empirically falsifiable.

In the Condition of Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information, again the Creation Model espouses that inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation and the Evolutionary Model espouses that increased over time from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years. Again both of these are empirically falsifiable. (True Origins)

Will these conditions be addressed? Only time, and funding, will tell. This, for now, is the best hope for the Atheists to find, their much desired, extrabiblical truth.

Maybe it would be a good idea for the Atheists to support this effort financially.

Maybe, just maybe, future findings could help the Atheists change their viewpoint of our origins. I will not hold my breath, but I will always remain hopeful for all of you. Your lives, as you all claim, dogmatically depends on that information.

bit.ly/IDMBio

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution

We watched these from Netflix as part of our homeschooling classes which spurred great discussions about various subjects. I recommend them to anyone that has not seen them. The following is from the marketing of the films.

Do you know?

- If there are creatures that really produce fire to defend themselves?

- How a giraffe gets a drink without causing lethal blood pressure to his brain?

- How Geckos can walk upside down, even on glass and not fall?

This series features Dr. Jobe Martin, who for the past 20 years, has been exploring evolution vs. creation. His findings have been fascinating students around the world as he lectures on these remarkable animal designs that cannot be explained by traditional evolution.

Dr. Martin himself was a traditional evolutionist, but his medical and scientific training would go through an evolution – rather, a revolution – when he began to study animals that challenged the scientific assumptions of his education. And thus began the evolution of a creationist...



Now, please spare all of us the gripes, complaints, and ad hom's about this gentleman and these films. It is getting old hat to hear such things from atheists out there. Unless that is your "A" game.

Darwin's Method Helped ID

Colbert Answers Contradiction Complaints

Bart Ehrman

colbertnation.com

Also thanks to our friend Brian, over at Apologetics 315, who found and gathered a detailed review of the book in question by Ben Witherington.

tinyurl.com/contradictionsanswered

Pulling a Jim Baker, reviewing John's book of Denial

As promised I need to review John's Book. John keeps pressing me to do so but I was hesitant since I feel so sorry for him. That aside, I did promise. Which book is that, you ask? That is understandable since John has been at this for quite sometime pushing the same book over and over with many titles.

Jill Maxick the Director of Publicity at Prometheus Books was so very generous and kind to send me a copy of his newest version called "Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity." What's needed is a circular-reference tagline of "from the author of Why I Became an Atheist." like Colbert. Didn't Colbert say about his own book though "written so good there is no need for another." John cannot claim that. Anyway moving on.

Scientific Consensus?

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID Violates the Scientific Consensus

Scientific consensus is highly problematic because it has been notoriously unreliable. For example in 1960 geosynclinal theory was the consensus explanation for mountain formation. It was "one of the great unifying principals of geology" according to authors of 'Geological Evolution of North America.' Geosynclinal theory was utterly abandoned after ten years of declaration and replaced with plate tectonics.

Even in a recent conversation it was get_education who poignantly said: "Actually, all scientific theories are "dubious" in the sense that further data might contradict the current theories, and thus we would have to come to different conclusions."

To which Dr. Van der Breggen complemented it with: "I think that we can agree that we should let a scientific investigation of the evidence of the world arbitrate our disagreement and that we should let the investigation do so unfettered by either an atheistic or theistic philosophy which might unfairly force our conclusions one way or the other."

Darwininism, today, is touted so widely as fact. We need to understand though that Darwin's theory at the start of the twentieth century was rejected by most all biologists. In the 1930's Darwinism revived when a handful of scientists merged Darwin's theory with Mendelian genetics, now known as Neo-Darwinism.

We can all agree that Darwinism remains the scientific consensus, but that consensus is shrinking. Dissent from Darwinism continues to grow in the scientific population. More would sign the list if their livelihood and reasearch would not be threatened by challenging Darwinism.

Michael Crichton, Medical Doctor, said it best: "I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. "

ID is Inherently Religious

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is Inherently Religious, Not Scientific

This should be voted the most common tactic. As noted earlier, ID studies pattern in nature that are best explained as the results of intelligence. Many special or specific sciences already study such patterns and draw design inferences. Examples include forensic science (did that person die of natural causes, or was there foul play?) and archaeology (Arrowhead or rock?). It is scientifically legitimate to recognize the work of an intelligent agent, even if that agent is unknown, as it often the case in archaeology.

The science of design do not apply merely to human designers either. Beavers, for instance, build dams that we recognize as designed. Design need not be restricted to Earth. SETI, as seen in the movie Contact, is looking for intelligent aliens. The working assumption of SETI is that we can distinguish an intelligently produced signal from random radio noise.

Critics discount ID because its designer is supposed to be unobservable. However, in science we have a "many-worlds hypothesis" to discount how finely tuned the laws of physics are to allow for the emergence and sustenance of life. If we are only one of many universes then it shouldn't surprise us that we find ourselves in a universe uniquely crafted for our existence. The existence of multiple universes has never been observed, in fact, they are such that they can never be observed! Does this mean the many-worlds hypothesis is rendered unscientific? Of course not. Observability is therefore not a necessary condition for an explanation to be scientific; macroevolution has never been observed.

Another exclusion of ID from science is that science only deals with what is repeatable, and nature's designs are unrepeatable. Is Big Bang or origin of life repeatable? Science has no clue how to repeat either of these events in a lab; yet they are clearly within the realm of science. If repeatability is considered a necessary condition for science, then disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, cosmology, and paleontology must be excluded from science as soon as they discover some unique artifact or feature of nature. Since those disciplines are included within the realm of science despite their unrepeatability, ID also must be included.

Faith in Christ, is for everyone's salvation and a creation explanation. Explanations of creation are in the Bible and the purpose is to glorify Him. Forced into science? Who cares, get saved!

ID, on the other hand, does try to find design within science and should be allowed to play! ID only seeks to identify a "design of things" within nature. That is not asking for too much.

ID does not have to prove it is a science-it already is. Richard Dawkins, surprisingly, agrees, "the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." (RD, The God Delusion, 58-59)

UPDATE: For more information on Intelligent Design here are some resources:
Access Research Network
Answers Research Journal
ID Network
IDEA
Institute for Creation Research
Intelligent Design
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design

ID is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo

Why do they say this? To try to discredit it. They believe that creationism has no intellectual credibility. This is why people, like some atheists here, parrot a professor at University of Kansas named Krishtalka.

ID is often confused with Creation Science (not an oxymoron), but they are indeed quite different. Rather then beginning with some particular interpretation of Genesis (as young-earth and old-earth creationists typically do), ID begins with investigating the natural world. ID looks for patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. Given what the world reveals about itself, ID proponents reason that a designing intelligence best explains certain patterns in nature. This is not to be confused with my own view of Biblical Creationism.

The great difference between ID and Creation Science, then, is that ID relies not on prior assumptions about divine activity in the world, but on methods developed within the scientific population for recognizing intelligence. Even Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial recognized that ID proponents do not base their theory on "the Book of Genesis," "a young earth," or "a catastrophic Noachic flood."

ID is a Science-Stopper

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is a Science-Stopper

Science writer Michael Shermer said "The point of the ID movement is not to expand scientific understanding-it is to shut it down"

The truth, however, is just the opposite. By rigidly excluding ID from science, Darwinists themselves impede scientific progress. Consider the embarrassing label of "junk DNA." The word "junk" suggests that useless portions of DNA have arisen together through a blind, unguided process of evolution. Evolutionary theorists thus have come to regard only a small portion of DNA as functional. By contrast, if DNA is the product of design, we would expect much of it to be functional.

Current research indicates that much of what previously termed "junk DNA" is now known to have function. In a recent Newsweek article, Mary Carmichael describes the transformation in how DNA is understood: "Researchers have realized that this forgotten part of the genome is, in fact, profoundly important. It contains the machinery that flips the switches, manipulating much of the rest of the genome...Genes make up only 1.2 percent of our DNA. The rest of the DNA, once called "junk DNA" was thought to be filler. Recent finds prove otherwise"

I would add even vestigial organs to this list also. It means total lost of an organs original function. Saying it still has function negate the use of the word.

Take the appendix in humans as a fine example, evolution scientists calls it a vestigial organ. Most evolution scientist, even this Dawkins dude, still believe the old story that the appendix is some kind of useless leftover from our ape-like ancestry. It's incredible that this myth continues to be spread. Even the encyclopedia sates "The appendix doesn't serve any useful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believed to be gradually disappearing in the human species over evolutionary time." (New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1:491, 1997)

Newest medical textbook, on the other hand, present the known function of this organ. For example, the appendix has a role to play in our immune system. This has left countless of people scared, and unable to fight infections, including my own Dad. Many evolutionists continue to cling to outdated and wrong information in their attempt to persuade you that evolution is true. They also claim that there are other so called "useless" body parts that are "left over."

Design thus encourages science to look for deeper insight into nature, whereas Darwinian evolution discourages it. The criticism that design stifles scientific progress is therefore mistaken. The criticism applies more readily to Darwinism then design.

Objections to Intelligent Design Refuted!

William A Dembski & Sean McDowell came up with a top ten list that speaks against Intelligent Design and responds to them in their book "Understanding ID". They both can be viewed here discussing their work in this part 1 of 4 interview:



(part 2, part 3, part 4)

I wanted to explore some of the 'Top Ten' to see how many of you feel about these points. They were listed in an article I read in Christian Research Journal.


ID must explain who designed the designer.

Dawkins raised this criticism against Design in The God Delusion. ID fails because it doesn't explain the Designer's designer. If we can't answer this then Dawkins claims "it's fruitless."

Is this how science works? Can scientists only accept explanations that themselves have been explained? The real problem with this objection is that it is always possible to ask for further explanation. Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason observed, "An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have and explanation for the explanation"

For example, if an archaeologist discovers an ancient object that looks like an arrowhead or digging tool, she would be fully justified in drawing a design inference. In fact, after a few clear instances she would be irrational not to infer design. She may have no clue as to the origin or even the identity of the designer, but certain patterns that the artifacts would point beyond natural forces to the work of an intelligent designer.

If every explanation needed a further explanation then nothing could ever be explained! If designer B was responsible for having designed designer A, then who designed B? Designer C of course and so on. Given the infinite regress of explanations, nothing could ever be explained and science itself would come to a standstill!

ID is Not Testable

The criticism is meant to disqualify ID as a science. If by "testable" we mean that a theory should be open to confirming or disconfirming evidence, then ID most certainly passes the test. Darwin presented what he regarded as strong evidence against design. So, claiming that ID has been tested by such evidence and shown to be false, however, creates a catch-22 for the critic: If evidence can count against a theory, evidence must also be able to count in favor of a theory. That knife must cut both ways.

Researchers have confirmed the evidence for ID across a wide range of disciplines including molecular biology, physics, and chemistry. (Design of Life)

Even if critics reject the evidence for ID, in the very act of rejecting the evidence, they put design to the test. (which is exactly what they do when no one is looking, I suspect)

Imagine what would happen if microscopic investigation revealed the words "Made by Yahweh" inscribed in the nucleus of every cell. The point is we wouldn't know this unless we actually "tested" cells for this sign of intelligence, which we couldn't do if ID were not testable. If ID fails, it won't be for lack of testability. I might add, unless the critics are afraid?

Obviously these are not all Ten, I will be addressing the rest in subsequent posts. Stay tuned!

Doubt itself, the Catalyst for Atheism

We are tempted YES. That doesn't mean we feed those temptations. Always remember the three monkeys, don't allow evil to influence you. Cover up, get away, or remove yourself from false teachings. We don't bring a sex addict to a porn shop, we don't bring a alcoholic to a bar, and we don't feed the doubt, we must continue in FAITH.

Doubt itself, I believe, is the catalyst for atheism.

In the News: Dan Barker and his cronies at Freedom from Religion [Christianity] were in the news yesterday when the Federal Judge threw out their lawsuit. Barker wanted to sue 'Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch' because the courts sometimes order disabled children to the ranch for education and assistance with their mental or troubled needs. It's a ranch that takes in kids that are emotionally/behaviorally disturbed or addicted to substances where all other options has failed. They are a true asset for helping children and have a great success rate. It was Barker's "contention that public money is used to indoctrinate children with religion and the state agencies' referrals to the ranch are unconstitutional." Would you consider Dan Barker's tree of chosen path, good or bad fruit? Does the devil have a firm grip on him?

Barker is the co founder of a secular humanist religious group called 'Freedom from Religion', should be called Freedom from Christ. Barker also wrote a book that I was given the task of reviewing some time ago. Before you ask the answer is yes, I did read it. In his book, "Losing faith in faith" he says the beginning of his atheism began when he started as a preacher, became more of a liberal Christian and kept on doubting (opposite of faith) until "blam" he was an atheist. It was a quite obvious story. Most of you gave me similar stories, most recently Stan.

To make the point clear lets look at the apostles and what they, not to mention the 250 million people in 2007, had or will have to endure, the torture, arrests, be-headings and such. They were put through prosecutions, tribulation, and great turmoils. Yet they kept their Hope and honor and never wavered in their faith.

The Bible talks a great deal of doubt, as you know.

Deuteronomy 28:66 "And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:"

Matthew 14:31 "And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"

Luke 12:29 "And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind."

Romans 14:23 "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

We must not trust our own lying wickedness, or others, and make sure we are not pushing our own agendas over or replacing God's (a.k.a. denominations or false religions). The thrust of my point though, is about leaving God entirely and abandoning Him.

Faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power that control human destiny, complete confidence in a plan, a loyalty or allegiance to a cause.

Webster says:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

Faith, in a sense, is synonymous with loyalty and TRUST. In fact the synonyms are: confidence, trust, reliance, conviction, belief, assurance, devotion, loyalty, faithfulness, commitment, fidelity, constancy, fealty, dedication, allegiance.

To doubt God Himself or that Jesus is not Lord is so damaging that this atheism is a move from light to darkness. This is the point that 2 John 7 is clear about.

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
 
I beg all of you not to depend on, or lose faith because of, anything that mankind has done. We must have faith that God's plan is true and sound and no one will get to Heaven without Jesus as it says in His Word, the authority we should all live by.

James 1:5-8 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

The Gig is Up!

Run away while you can!

They are on to us now! We might as well pack it up and move to some cave. It appears that University of Wisconsin-Madison biologist Sean B. Carrol has the "ultimate" forensic record of evolution and has wrote a book about it.

He claims that "direct evidence has poured in as to how complex structures, particularly those of animals, are made and evolved."

I didn't even bother to read the book because after all it says "ultimate" forensic record of evolution right on the cover so it must be true. As I was packing our bags I stopped and wanted to see how this could of happened, I wanted to see what believers thought about the book. Was this just another person claiming evolution as fact?

I came across an exhaustive review by Casey Luskin who used to be a geologist doing geological research at Scripps Institution for Oceanography He was more then qualified to review this claim of Carrol's. In Luskin's review titled The Evolutionary Gospel According to Sean B. Carroll Luskin proves what Carroll was doing.

Luskin poetically explains how Carrol used techniques to convince people of his theory. From the beginning of the book review, Luskin claimed "To ensure the reader adopts his own view of evolution, Carroll resorts to scare tactics." Luskin goes on to explain how and where Carrol went wrong and backs everything up with a viewpoint that everyone can understand. You can read the book review yourself but the conclusion of Luskin's review is:

"Sean B. Carroll’s book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution makes large promises but fails to delivers. He claims that science will remove “any doubt” about evolution, and he hopes his scare-tactics about a coming environmental apocalypse will convince people to just accept evolution and save the planet. But there’s no valid reason to argue that one must be a Darwinist to accept responsibility for protecting the environment. As a conservationist myself, I don’t need, as Carroll taunts me, to “accept evolution or you won’t ‘think at all’” in order to understand the importance of conserving our natural resources.

While Carroll is a good writer who makes science easy to understand, his book has a politically oriented gospel message which is simple: just believe evolution without any doubt, and we may be saved from environmental catastrophe. But Carroll’s scientific arguments fail to back up his big talk. Carroll’s examples of natural selection’s creative power—animal breeding, peppered moths, or loss of function—fail to impress. His repetition of Darwinist urban legends about computer studies of eye-evolution and heavy reliance upon vague just-so stories about icefish give little reason to turn the head of the informed Darwin-skeptic. Carroll’s discussions of junk-DNA and pseudogenes are interesting, but it is disconcerting that Carroll never mentions that his “use it or lose it” rule implies that if a stretch of DNA has not been lost, then perhaps it’s still being used. His observation that widely diverse organisms often use the same or similar proteins only serves to further confirm my suspicions of common design in biology. Incredibly, Carroll uses these examples to claim he has “eviscerated” intelligent design. The ID-proponent who reads this book will feel very encouraged about the strength of her own position, for Carroll failed to provide any compelling explanations for the primary subject of his book: the evolutionary making of the fittest."

Honey! you can unpack, it was just 'another' false alarm!

In the cult of science

In a better understanding of current science breakthroughs and truth, I do my best to read quite a bit about the subject. I have noticed a real split in the scientific community beyond creation vs evolution and various evidences of our origin. With presuppositions firmly in place it appeared the scientific community is divided to interpret the data. If a scientist believes in a Creator then the likelihood of interpreting the data properly.* If the scientist doesn't believe in a Creator then they have to shove the data into an abstract box consistent to evolution. *noted, my bias to this subject. I just heard of a label for, off the deep end, science that was intriguing. Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges coined it the 'cult of science' in an interview.

Hedges said in an interview at salon.com "You know, there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. 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. So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. I mean, industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. So I think that I find the faith that these people (new atheists) place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels."

Mr. Hedges is a Christian and was critical towards radical Christian fundamentalism in his previous book American Fascists. I haven't read that book yet, I would guess that Hedges might of been properly linking 'radicals' with false converts who follow the Bush doctrine of the neoconservative (Neocon) movement. Vastly different then the atheists link the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) to Christianity. Admittedly, I agree when he writes that "Christian radicals" (I would call them 'false converts') are often so consumed with power and wealth they are no longer practicing Christianity in its traditional sense, as a religion focused on compassion and caring for the downtrodden."

Hedges later added in the interview "That's what leads Hitler to try and breed humans and apes to try to create an oversized warrior or to send expeditions to Tibet to find a pure, Aryan race. I mean, that's not science. It's the cult of science, and I think the New Atheists also make that leap from science into the cult of science, and that's a problem."

I do like this man as we share many of the same points of view, he shoots it straight and I love that in someone. His comments sure has sparked my curiosity enough to read his new book "I Don't Believe in Atheists". I will have to wait to see Hedges' points. Science is morally neutral as he states, I might add that science is also objective. But people are subjective and scientists are people. So by proxy, science may be subjective. I would also conclude that science may be morally neutral, but if people are either Christian or evil then one could conclude by proxy, Science, as a community, can be both for the better of mankind and evil. It all depends on their perspective to God. So I agree Hedges, we cannot place our faith in science and reason as a route toward human salvation, but we must place our faith in God for our Salvation. I anticipate your book arrival Mr. Hedges, thanks.  

bit.ly/cultscience