February 12, 2012

What Hath Darwin Wrought?

"Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history."
— Karl Marx

Evolutionary propaganda is a masterpiece. The Nazis and Soviet Union would approve. First, the populace worships "science". Next, leftist governments push God out of schools and public places. Follow that with equating operational science (which can be observed, tested, measured, falsified, repeated and so forth) with historical, speculative science and pretend evolution is "science". Join that stuff with anti-God propaganda and liberal theology (not to mention human laziness), and "scientific" Darwinian concepts run rampant.

Taking Darwin's popularization of evolution (it was not original with him, you know) as "science", people wanted to apply it as a social principle as well. With horrible results.
Evil, in the socialist worldview, is the oppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie. Having been enlightened by Marx regarding the ‘true history of life’, men and women could now take control of that history. They could accelerate ‘nature’ as it sped towards its goal of a world revolution that would banish such ‘evil’ and produce a socialist utopia.
Hitler, I discovered, shared a similar worldview, as outlined in his book Mein Kampf (literally ‘my struggle’). He believed that people, like animals and plants, were engaged in a constant struggle for survival. The climax of history would be the survival of the fittest race—which he believed to be the ‘Aryan race’, as embodied in the German people.
Hitler and Stalin both applied their ‘scientific’ logic with a ruthless, overwhelming determination. So did Mao Zedong in China, where countless millions also perished in the name of a utopian Marxist dream. And they not only convinced themselves, but millions of others—people just like you and me—that they were right to do so.
Read the entirety of "Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution" here.

A Creed for Charles Darwin's Birthday

We believe in Darwin, the father all-sovereign, explainer of all things visible and invisible, and in one Thomas Henry Huxley, the bulldog of Darwin, begotten from the substance of Darwin.

We believe in his son, Julian Huxley, of one substance with his Father.

We believe in Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins who proceed from the spirit of Darwin and Huxley and through whom all things were understood, things on heaven and things on earth:

Who, for our enlightenment, were made flesh and became men, who suffered grievously at the hands of petty academics, were denied tenure and publication at State schools, but rose to preeminence at superior universities and ascended into endowed chairs and chancellorships without end.

By their convictions and firmly held beliefs may we and all our works be judged.

For we are the chimps of his lab and the apes of his zoo. Amen.

February 11, 2012

More About the Blatant Dishonesty of the "I Lack Belief" Assertion

Buon giorno. When atheists redefine the established definition of the word "atheist" ("No, we didn't!") into the Dawkinsesque, "I lack belief in God or gods", they are being dishonest. That's right, I said it! The ploy is to say, "You believe in God. I lack belief, so I have nothing to prove. So, you prove it, and I'll just sit here in my lack of belief". Ridiculous. They are making a truth claim that "There is no God". They equivocate God with the Tooth Fairy, but there are no converts to Tooth Fairyism, no philosophers, nobody writing books about how the Tooth Fairy changed their lives. Thinking people should not fall for that insulting, smug nonsense, capice?

So, what about the guy who says, "I lack belief in the September 11 terrorist attacks, and I lack belief that the Holocaust happened"? Do you just say, "Oh, since you lack belief, you have nothing to prove"? Like the atheist, they are making a serious truth claim and need to give evidence for it. (For more on that, click here and go to the 33 minute mark). Another post on this topic can be found here.

Here is more about the ridiculous claims of atheists, their "lack of belief" and their logical fallacies:

Look, if “atheism” is just the lack of belief in God, then “religion” is the lack of non-belief in God. Being “religious” doesn’t mean you are poisonous or against reason or anything else. It simply means that you don’t non-believe in God.
Ridiculous? Of course. But if the New Atheists can lump all “religion” into one blobulous category and treat it all as if it were one thing, why can’t we do that with atheism?
Still ridiculous? Of course. At least partially so. The tu quoque form of argument is fallacious in most circumstances, except when it’s used to show the absurdity of the other’s position. I could use it that way to show how absurd it is to treat “religion” as the same thing in all its manifestations everywhere, but there’s no need for that. It’s idiotic enough on the face of it, without needing arguments in Latin and with italic font.

February 9, 2012

Creation: Science and Theology

Also posted at "A Soldier for Jesus" and at "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman".

Buon giorno. This is a different kind of article for me, because it was a new experience. I pestered Chris Date to let me be on his "Theopologetics" podcast to talk about creation science. He was interested, and said he had someone else in mind so that all three of us could do the podcast. This would be great in the lead-up to "Question Evolution Day".

It was scheduled several weeks away. We got the outline of questions he was going to ask, and shared it online to create our responses. Finally, the evening of February 7, 2012 arrived. This was my first conference call on Skype, and only about the fifth time I've used it at all, so I was a bit awkward with it.

Chris is experienced not only with technological things, but able to develop the interview questions to bring out the strengths of his guests. He is also serious about theology itself, and takes the Bible very seriously (I recall asking him if he tends to over-think some things), so I knew we were in good hands.

After e-mail communications and sharing the outline online, I finally "met" Nathan Schumaker. I quickly learned that he takes his subject and studies seriously as well, and is quite knowledgeable. Some of what he presented, I had known from previous years (pretty sure I was the oldest guy there), but he also taught me a few things.

Chris projected a session time of two hours. Wrong-o! Three and a half hours. It was time well spent, however.

Frankly (mind if I call you Frank?), I wasn't all that thrilled with my part of the discussion. Chris was able to edit out things like connection drop-outs and restarts, but also those annoying times when I was talking and the dry air in this place got to my throat; I had to mute Skype, cough, take a swallow of water and come back. Those kinds of things are to be expected. I think my main problem was that I was trying to do too much, as if I'd never have another podcast experience or something. Since I had time to prepare the extensive notes, I kept going back and adding golden thought nuggets. Some of those were repetitious. Also, since I had so much that I thought was oh-so-vital to say, I did some tangential things. And I got lost in the notes on occasion.

When I gave live talks in churches, I did reasonably well, but this was different. Still, I don't give myself failing grades. This was a learning experience, capice? I expect to do better next time, whenever that is.

Edit: Forgot to mention that I kiddingly wrote to Chris, "Hope you took all my stupid stuff out!" He kidded back, "Nope, I left your stupid stuff in :-)".

"So, what do we have, Cowboy Bob?"

We have a podcast in three parts that was recorded in one evening. It has science for creation, including the age of the Earth and the days of Genesis (Nathan Schumacher will give you quite a bit to ponder). Also, theology and a defense for the days of Genesis. I was able to spend some time discussing logical fallacies, as well as the way people use them outright to lie.

At this writing, only the first part is available for download or listening on the site.

Part 1 is here.
Part 2 is here.
Part 3 is here.

February 6, 2012

Persecution of Christians is Not Always Successful

"Tolerance is a two-way street."

happens when a graduate-level student of counseling is a Christian and does not want to deal with homosexual issues? In accordance with guidelines, she refers to another counselor. How does the college respond to her actions that were "by the book"? Tell her to undergo remediation to see the error of her ways or be dismissed.

Wow, the Gaystapo is intimidating to the weak-willed!

But this time, it looks like justice, truth and even common sense can prevail. Some of us stand up for values.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a trial at the district level for a graduate level counseling student who was dismissed from her program for asking that a client with “gay” issues be referred to another counselor because as a Christian she could not affirm that lifestyle choice.
Officials at Eastern Michigan University took that action against Julea Ward, a student approaching the end of her degree program with a 3.91 grade point average, even though, as the appeals judges noted, the school’s own practices in fact permitted such referrals.
You can read the rest of "University Blasted for Intolerance of Christianity" here.

February 2, 2012

Are Faith and Science At Odds?

This nonsense came at me out of the blue, but helps illustrate the topic.

Buon giorno. When discussing science, evolution and faith, people have some very strange ideas about definitions. I have encountered some interesting re-defintions (including the astonishing claim that if someone is not an evolutionary biologist, he or she is not a scientist!), misunderstandings of definitions (deliberate, I suspect, for purposes of personal attacks), equivocation (evolution is science, from people who promote the thing but do not really understand it themselves) and so on. For that matter, the word "evolution" itself has several meanings. Many misunderstandings can be avoided by a couple of things: First, know the correct definition of the word, and second, clarify terms in the first place, such as "What do you mean by...?"

Then there are the types who say that if you disagree with the tentative, tampered, tendentious "evidence" for evolution, you are a "liar". That smacks of the desperation of a fundamentalist evolutionist who cannot abide by the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Similar to one of the most glaring fits of idiocy, "Liar for Jesus". I'll let you, my clever readers, figure out how ridiculous that one is all by yourselves.

When both parties understand the terminology, they can communicate better, capice?

Greg Koukl of "Stand to Reason" had a good discussion about clarifying terms on his January 29, 2012 broadcast. The question was raised whether or not faith and science are at odds with each other. Below is his monologue, followed by my brief call about Question Evolution Day. The full, almost three-hour podcast is here. I suggest that you get that, because the third hour is his interview with Professor Michael Flannery about the video, "Darwin's Heretic" (James Russell Wallace).

February 1, 2012

Kindle, I've Got You Covered!

Buon giorno. When I did my write-ups about my Kindle, I mentioned that there were three things that did not come with it: Cover, external light and additional power supply. This is about the cover, which was the most important accessory to me.

Covers are not cheap. Amazon makes some covers that include a light, and cost almost as much as the Kindle itself. I did some serious searching, and checking the reviews. Some people give a 1-star review because they are too difficult to please, others give it because they are upset about shipping (that's not cool). But some had genuine issues. I saw reviews where the 1, 2, and 3-star reviews totaled more than the 4 and 5-star reviews, so I skipped those.

Buried in the list were a few covers by a company called Timbuk2. Not many reviews, but one gave all the details that I needed, and I went for it. By the way, I am not being paid or getting anything for this review. 

The one I got was black/gunmetal/red.
I have no idea why the picture makes the
gray look green, though. Click for larger.

Here is the official photo:
This is what I look at, these colors are right.
The cover clasp is magnetic. On occasion, I have to push a bit to get it to close, but after some use, it closes nicely.

Inside, there are straps that hold the Kindle snugly in place. The cover is pretend fur, so the most sensitive part of the Kindle is protected when closed.
Which reminds me, I'm going to review that book.
The video that described this "reading jacket" really helped, and I appreciated the fact that I do not need to keep it open, as shown above. Instead, I can fold it over while reading:
So, not only is the screen protected during travel or just laying about, it helps in other ways. I set the Kindle down carelessly and it slid onto the floor. Thanks for that bit of extra impact protection, Timbuk2! Also, even though you may need to pull the material aside, the buttons and power opening are available; I have not taken my Kindle out of this cover since it arrived.

On a side note, I purchased a Belkin reading light. At first, I was not very happy with it because the Kindle Touch has rounded edges and getting it to stay put was a bit dicey. Belkin made the light with an expandable base so that it works with covers. This one barely fits, but it does fit:
Click for larger. Kindle, Timbuk2 cover and Belkin light (not switched on for picture).
Main point: I recommend this cover. Addendum: I have discontinued my Amazon Affiliates program because I do not wish to be affiliated with a company that gives such pitiful customer service.

Subscribe in a reader