“The market seems flooded with books by scientists describing a caged death match between science and God–with science winning, or at least chipping away at faith’s underlying verities.” -- David Van Biema, Time Magazine 2006, quoted here.
Chipping away?
1. The scientist, in order to do science, and, indeed, in order to believe that science is even doable, must rely on fundamental assumptions about reality. These include, e.g., the existence of immutable, immaterial laws of logic, the existence of immutable, immaterial laws of mathematics, the existence of a regulated, law-based universe, and ourselves improbably endowed with the ability to self-consciously contemplate and explore it.
A universe whose most reasonable and only satisfactory and sufficient explanation is an intentional, purposeful Creator-God who is himself rational, moral, and purposeful.
2. Science cannot address "why?". It cannot satisfactorily address human aspirations such as the longing for meaning, significance, purpose, authentic love, immortality, or an intrinsic moral sense and thirst for justice -- in other words, all that really counts as the essence of being human. Darwinian attempts are pitifully deficient.
John Lennox does a good job addressing the "caged death match" in his book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
Properly understood, there is no death match between science and religion -- just a war in the hearts of the unbelieving tragically played out in public view.
There is a God. He has done something about our estranged condition. It's our move.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Quote of the Day: "No Miracles Allowed"
Image via WikipediaThis could mean one of two things.
It could mean scientists rule out the very possibility of miracles as an a priori assumption, in which case science predicates itself upon an undemonstrated, unproven, empirically empty, unscientific presumption and becomes the intellectually-stunted unscientific pursuit of explanations that fit its preconceptions.
Or, it could mean that miracles may in fact occur, but science, self-constrained by methodological naturalism, will formulate only naturalistic explanations, in which case science becomes the ardent pursuit of false explanations.
Science is a tool. Because of its methodological naturalism constraint, if science as a hammer is confronted with a screw, it's going to insist it's really a nail. That's the way science works.
And that pretty much describes what's going on in cosmology and biology. The more they discover about the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexities of the cell, the more they must realize there's something screwy with their methodological blinkers.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Quote of the Day: "Only as men are God's creatures do they have personal significance"
Image via WikipediaWhat then is the theological significance of biblical creationism? Not only does it address and satisfy the screaming intellectual need that we all have as thinking persons for a rational explanation of the universe and ourselves that will preserve significance for us at the same time, but it also defines who we are as men and leaves us, so defined, with great worth and dignity. It also provides the theistic context for necessary for moral absolutes. Without the biblical doctrine of creation we are left with non-answers in these areas.
The church has traditionally understood Genesis as teaching a divine creation ex nihilo, and more particularly, the creation of man in his own image by a direct act of God. The church cannot afford to abandon these absolutely fundamental articles of faith, and it will do so only at great cost to itself and to the people it seeks to win to faith and to a home in heaven, because only as men are God’s creatures do they have personal significance and only as they are his creatures are they responsible moral beings answerable finally, of course, to him. -- Robert L. Reymond, Contending for the Faith, quoted by Albert Mohler, here.You can be a materialist, or you can be a human being. That's the choice we face.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Mohler Monday: "Evolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism"
Image via WikipediaEvolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional morality. If human beings are not made in the image of God, and if the entire cosmos is nothing more than a freakish accident, morality is nothing but a mirage and human beings–cosmic accidents that we are–are free to negotiate whatever moral arrangement seems best to us at any given time. Human life has no inherent dignity, morality has no objective basis, and we are alone in the universe to eat drink and be merry before our bones join the fossil record and we pass from existence. -- Albert Mohler, 2004I'm working my way through Albert Mohler's posts on "evolutionism", which is his term for the philosophical/theological ideas that get dragged along with the science of neo-darwinism. So, for the next several weeks I plan on posting a Mohler Monday quote.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
The Anti-Darwinian Shot Heard Around The World
Image via Wikipedia“Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion.” -- Stephen Meyer, quoted by Albert Mohler, here.
In 2004 the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published a peer-reviewed paper, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” by Intelligent Design (ID) proponent Dr. Stephen Meyer.
Eugenie Scott offered the following by way of scientific rebuttal: the paper was “recycled material” and “substandard science”.
The Biological Society grovelled its apology and took The Pledge: arguments for Intelligent Design “will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings,”. Regardless. Ever.
As Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Discovery Institute explained, “Instead of addressing the paper’s argument or inviting counterarguments or rebuttal, the society has resorted to affirming what amounts to a doctrinal statement in an effort to stifle scientific debate. They’re trying to stop scientific discussion before it even starts.”No Divine Foot Allowed In The Door.™
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Albert Mohler's Darwinism Storehouse
Image via Wikipedia
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Leftist Canadian Court Overturns Man's Will
Image via WikipediaA guy dies and gives all his money to his son, leaving his four daughters with nothing. Was this wrong? Perhaps. Unjust? Sounds like it. Was this guy mean and wicked? Maybe. Was it his money, and therefore his right to do so? Yes.
Yes.
Until the leftist Canadian judiciary steps in.
The B.C. Supreme Court judge overturned the man’s will, saying his estate should be settled based on ‘‘contemporary moral standards’’ -- meaning the judge's or the state's shifting moral standards, not the individual's.
Apparently it's only your money if you spend it the right way. Otherwise, it's the state's money. Which really means it isn't yours at all -- it's only yours as long as you spend it the right way and the state allows you to have it. (Kind of like the studies which show how much it "costs" the government to let you keep some of your money by tax deductions.)
The son, who would have been free to do what he saw fit with the money, including redressing his father's unjust action (if that is what it was) will now receive 20% of his father’s assets. His lawyer is considering an appeal.
The man could have given his son all this money the day before he died, or, he could have given it all to charity, or he could have donated it all to the Canadian Supreme Court Justices Benevolent Fund and that is the point of a will -- it expresses your will and is supposed to be carried out after your death.
I feel for the daughters, but I'm holding the line on this one. What do you think?
Read more.
Update: For more on BC's law, and how it varies with Canadian common law, go here.
Should Christians Practice Yoga?
Image via WikipediaNo. Nor should they wear articles of clothing with yoga symbols on them. Yoga is not benign, and, protests to the contrary, the physical postures cannot easily be separated from the underlying spiritual disciplines and intent of yoga.
Asian Christians, surrounded by Hinduism and other pagan religions, are far more attuned to the spiritual reality (not good) associated with yoga and know that, if you are Christian, you don't do it.
Christian writer Albert Mohler, pictured to the right, has an article on the subject here.
If you are a Christian, please don't start. If you have started, please stop. And warn your friends -- if you love them.
.
Related articles
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Quote of the Day: "For the First 140 Million Years We Were Basically Vermin"
Image via Wikipedia"Mammals actually evolved almost around the same time as dinosaurs, about 210 million years ago," she told BBC News.
"And for the first 140 million years, we were basically vermin scurrying around the feet of the dinosaurs and not really doing much of anything."We"?
Darwinian thought results in decent science, but is philosophical poison. It is partially true, and, as a half-truth is particularly dangerous. Natural selection -- the fittest survives -- is intuitively obvious and trivial. What is at stake is the ultimate driving mechanism -- mind or matter. More and more, while retaining their darwinian allegiances, scientists are discovering that chemical and biological evolution is law- rather than chance-based.
And where there are laws, there is a Law-giver. Free to let the laws roll out, or to tinker and intervene as He sees fit.
In the beginning was the Word.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Quote of the Day: "Many government pension and health care systems are now little more than Ponzi schemes"
Image by Marion Doss via FlickrThe root of the problem is the same in most countries: With populations aging, the intergenerational transfer system that has paid for pensions and health care is breaking down. Low birthrates and longer life spans are changing the balance between workers and retirees so that current levels of taxation cannot support the promised benefits. Across the developed and, increasingly, developing worlds, worker-to-recipient ratios are declining. By 2050, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates, there will be only 2.7 American workers for each retiree, down from 4.7 in 2008. The European Union nations will have only 1.8 workers per retiree, and Japan 1.3. China faces the biggest adjustment, dropping from about 7.7 workers per retiree to 2.1.
As a result of these demographic changes, many government pension and health care systems for the elderly worldwide are now little more than Ponzi schemes that are running short of new “investors.” Aggravating the budget situation is the rapid rise in health care costs caused by the development of new—and expensive—medical technologies, drugs, and treatment procedures.The Bottom-Line:
In the past, the United States did reasonably well by muddling through crises. But this time, temporizing may not serve us as satisfactorily. The needed medicine is bitter. Tax increases in the trillions of dollars appear necessary, and they probably won’t be politically possible unless accompanied by similarly large—and permanent—cuts in government-provided retirement and health benefits. So, despite the political rhetoric on both sides and the emergence of a Tea Party movement that instills the fear of higher taxes in Washington, we are still betting on the politicians to cut a deal. Call it a “grand social welfare compromise.”
The immediate concern must be to find a way to close the long-term budget gap; but how it is closed is just as important. The understandable temptation will be to tinker—to raise a tax here and there, and to trim benefits in one way or another, in the hope that a series of small changes will solve our long-term budget problems. That may be the most appealing course politically, but it is not likely to work, and it certainly will not maximize domestic productivity and international competitiveness. The key will be to raise taxes and trim benefits in a way that minimizes disruption and hardship while creating incentives for saving and investment. This will take analytic smarts and political savvy.The article points out we (the US -- but this applies to Canada too) are not as wealthy as we think we are; we have huge unfunded liabilities, including state- and federal-level pensions, social security, pensions, and healthcare.
To those young, healthy, able-bodied Canadians who like the idea of a guaranteed $20K a year: we can't afford you. Please take responsibility for your own life and make your own arrangements.
From the Wilson Quarterly.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The TSA: Cry Me A River
Image via WikipediaFinally, a Delta agent checked again for me and said, "Yes, there is a flight I can put you on, but it leaves in 5 minutes, here is your ticket and boarding pass, RUN." So I did and [he] came with me.
He told the situation to the first TSA agent and there weren't many people in that line, so I moved quickly up to the security check. A man, was scanning my OVERNIGHT bag (no big luggage at all) and my purse and motioning me through. A big stern-looking African American woman stopped him and said that she needed to pat me down, wan[d] me, go through my luggage, etc. The other TSA man told her that my flight was about to leave and that he knew that my purse and bag were fine. I was wearing open flip-flops, a cotton skirt and a t-shirt. I am as American looking as apple-pie!
Then my nightmare started. She had me spread my legs and she SLOWLY frisked me. Then I said, "Can I go now, my flight is so important to me, I'm attending a funeral?" That made her furious. She informed me that I was NOT co-operating with her and that she was IN CHARGE, and that crying (I was sobbing) would not do me any good at all with her. The other TSA officer begged her to let me catch my flight, … she blew him off.The woman missed her flight and the funeral.
Other TSA horror stories here.
Any personal stories (good/bad) from readers?
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Nature 3, Man 0: Fruit Flies
Recent experiments have revealed that when perturbed in flight, a fruit fly can recover its heading to within 2 degrees in less than a tenth of a second. Here’s how the researchers describe the results:
Just as the Wright brothers implemented controls to achieve stable airplane flight, flying insects have evolved behavioral strategies that ensure recovery from flight disturbances.
This is yet another example of evolutionary euphemism. Recovery from flight disturbances is a complex, fine-tuned capability integrating sensors, algorithms and actuators. Not the stuff of random mutations. So the evolutionary euphemism compares it with the Wright brothers and their flying machines. -- Cornelius HunterRegular readers of the Ball Bounces will know that I am an avid fan of the Wright brothers and how they solved the problem of flight by focusing on the problem of control rather than thrust. What has taken the best, creative, wilful minds of man to accomplish, blind, dead, dumb, nature did without even trying -- and embedded its technology in an object the size of a, er, fruit fly.
I'm scoring this one for nature.
Score is now Nature 3, Man 0.
(To read all the articles in this series, select the Nature vs. Man keyword on the left side of the blog).
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Obama: Unions 2, Investors 0
Image via WikipediaThanks to a generous share of GM stock obtained in the company's 2009 bankruptcy settlement, the United Auto Workers is well on its way to recouping the billions of dollars GM owed it — putting it far ahead of taxpayers who have recouped only about 30 percent of their investment and further still ahead of investors in the old GM who have received nothing.
The boon for the union fits the pattern established when the White House pushed GM into bankruptcy and steered it through the courts in a way that consistently put the interests of the union ahead of many suppliers, dealers and investors — stakeholders that ordinarily would have fared as well or better under the bankruptcy laws.Obama: not a Messiah, not even a great or good leader -- just another unprincipled politician paying off his support base at the expense of justice to ordinary citizens who invested their hard-earned money in GM shares.
Miller Time or Mecca Time: O Christmas Tree! (Or, Why The West Will Fail)
Image via WikipediaThis headline from an Oregon newspaper (home of the Mo-Mo bomber) tells you why the West will fail. A culture that is so apologetic and weak-kneed it cannot bring itself to call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree doesn't deserve to withstand the onslaught of muscular militant Islam.
Jesus, and Christianity, more than anyone or anything, are responsible for the freedoms of western individualism: not society, or the crowd, but "he who wills, let him take up his cross"; and, "as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become the children of God". Western individualism is founded on Christianity. If we can't even bring ourselves to acknowledge a benign, non-religious symbol of Christianity, we don't deserve to survive the onslaught of submit! surrender! Islam -- an intolerant religion that punishes apostates with death.
Mohammed: What's In A Name?
Do Germans name their kids Adolf?
We'll all know moderate Muslims are serious about disassociating with terrorism when they stop giving their kids the same name as terrorists.
Right now, Mohammed is the most popular name given to boys in England.
Pictured -- Mohamed, Mohamed (Mo-Mo) the Oregon bomber.
Right now, Mohammed is the most popular name given to boys in England.
Pictured -- Mohamed, Mohamed (Mo-Mo) the Oregon bomber.
Some Guy Named Mohamed Mohamed Tries To Set Off Bomb In Oregon
Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a Somali-born U.S. citizen, was arrested at 5:42 p.m., 18 minutes before the tree lighting was to occur, on an accusation of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. The felony charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a $250,000 fine.
The arrest was the culmination of a long-term undercover operation, during which Mohamud had been monitored for months as his alleged bomb plot developed.
According to the FBI affidavit, the case began in August 2009 when Mohamud was in e-mail contact with an unindicted associate overseas who was believed to be involved in terrorist activities. In December 2009, while the unindicted associate was in a frontier province of Pakistan, Mohamud and the associate discussed the possibility of Mohamud traveling to Pakistan to participate in violent jihad.We all know that jihad is a peaceful struggle -- American children are taught this in school. The FBI lies! I accuse the FBI of entrapment. This man is innocent. "If the bomb didn't blow to bits, we must acquit!" Where's Johnny Cochran when we need him?
File "B" for Bonkers: Disabled British Girl Takes Up Too Much Space
A disabled girl aged 11 has been rejected by one of London's top academies because she "takes up too much space" in her wheelchair.
High-achieving Harris City Academy Crystal Palace said Idayah Miller could not be allowed to join as she would "restrict the movement of other children" in corridors and presented a "health and safety risk".
"We take students of all abilities here so that is not an issue. We are just concerned about her safety. We are saying to the parents, 'Do you really want your child to be a safety risk to others?'".Story and photo Here.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Getcher ESV Bible Free On Kindle
Image via WikipediaESV Bible Kindle Free.
Can Man Be Good Without God?
Image via WikipediaIn our culture, even the most passionate atheist cannot help having been influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview that shaped Western civilization. “We know that you can be good without God,’’ Speckhardt tells CNN.
He can be confident of that only because he lives in a society so steeped in Judeo-Christian values that he takes those values for granted. But a society bereft of that religious heritage is one not even Speckhardt would want to live in.
From Townhall's Jeff Jacoby.
Would western atheists really want to live in a godless society? You don't see many of them clamouring to live in North Korea or China, with its forced abortions and harvesting of body parts from prisoners.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Michael Ignatieff's Touch-My-Junk Comedy Tour
“If you’re in my business, you live in an airport. And so I have people touching my private parts all day long” -- Liberal Leader Michael IgnatieffIgnatieff shows how Liberals submit to a junk inspection, right.
Lives in an airport? Next he'll be living in a van down by the river.
Related articles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)