Feb 052006
 

ID critics have long prevaricated ID as Creationism. The Darwinian PR campaign is certainly effective with the initiates. There are many fronts to the Darwinian PR campaign. We’ve seen their deception in the mainstream media and in pop culture TV programs.

Since I believe that Darwinian evolution is essentially an atheistic philosophy and not real science, the current ID debate has prompted certain ancillary criticism on Christianity. A recent example of such an attack was promoted in the science fiction series Stargate SG-1. This post is intended to defend against such attacks raised by the Stargate SG-1 program.

In season 9 of the Stargate series, it has introduced a race of Ascended beings called the Ori. The Ori are extremely powerful beings that once had physical bodies but now have evolved to an incorporeal plane of existence, giving them a godlike quality. (For more information on the Ori follow the above link.) The Ori are evil beings because they deceive their followers to worship them for their own benefits, in essence they gain strength from the worship of their followers. Anyone who refuses to worship them would be killed. The Ori also give false hope to its’ followers of the promise of Ascension, which provides immortality and enlightenment.

The worshippers of this Ori are portrayed as dupes who reject science and rationality. The worshippers would blindly annihilate an entire planet full of people at the whim of the Ori. These worshippers have been brainwashed to fear and obey the Ori with unquestioning loyalty and contrary to all moral discernments. Continue reading »

Jan 062006
 

The subject of origins inevitably brings up questions about where we came from, why we are here, and what the purpose of life is (if such a thing exists). When it comes down to it, these are the only questions that are ultimately worth asking or seeking answers for.

When people ask why the unsolved mysteries of chemistry and physics are not the subject of debate when it comes to public education, I ask myself, What planet are these guys living on? These questions have no bearing on anything of ultimate significance.

If the atheistic/materialistic worldview is correct, there is no reason why one should not commit suicide when things get tough. Once you are dead and the biochemical processes in your brain shut down, there are no consequences, there is no accountability, there is no memory.

One day our sun will become a red giant and its outer atmosphere will expand beyond the orbit of the earth. When that happens, the earth’s atmosphere will be stripped away, the oceans will boil away, the sands will fuse into glass, and our planet will be sterilized of all life for all eternity. There will be no record of anything that anyone has ever done.

If the atheistic/materialistic worldview is correct, life is ultimately absurd. And the worst part is, this tragic, nihilistic, dark, cold, depressing philosophy doesn’t even make sense, and requires an unreasonable amount of blind faith. My favorite definition of reasonable faith is, “putting your trust in that which you have reason to believe is true.”

I have come to the conclusion that atheism/materialism requires blind faith, and that theism only requires reasonable faith. In order to be an atheist one must believe that nothing produced everything for no reason, that inert matter spontaneously generated life, that the personal came from the impersonal, that consciousness came from unconsciousness, that the equivalent of typographical errors turned rocks, atmospheric gasses and unspecified liquid concoctions into Chopin in 1017 seconds (and this list could be expanded). It seems to me that this is “unscientific,” magical thinking if ever such a thing existed.

I don’t have enough blind faith to be an atheist.

I do not propose that atheism makes people bad, but that it is destructive because it logically destroys any ultimate sense of purpose in life. Without a sense of self-sacrificial purpose, life loses meaning, and at that point untold miseries are destined to abound.

 Posted by at 10:54 pm

Can We Live Without God?

 Theology  Comments Off on Can We Live Without God?
Dec 222005
 

Fox News interviewing Ravi Zacharias and Michael Shermer.

Sun., Dec. 25 at 9 p.m. ET
Repeats at midnight
by Lauren Green

A recent FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll finds that 92 percent of Americans believe in God, but nearly 70 percent think religion plays too small of a role in our lives. One reason may be because people just don’t talk about their faith very much — it’s kept private.

Join FOX News this weekend as we ask, “Can We Live Without God?”

From religion and politics to evolution and creation, pastors, scholars and individuals explain what gives meaning to their lives.

We’ll find out how their faith influences their lives and helps them make the moral and ethical choices we all face.

You’ll meet:

“¢ An evangelical pastor whose guide for dating, sex and marriage comes from directly the Bible

“¢ A Skeptic who turned to science for answers

“¢ A man who took his faith in God out of this world

Dec 012005
 

Andrew Rowell over at ID in the United Kingdom justifiably express his outrage for the Lord May’s retiring annual address. I agree completely with Andrew that Lord May is completely ignorant of Christian fundamentalism. He used his address to go on a tirade of defamatory attack on Christianity. In a sense, I fully understand the threat that he feels. The Darwinian myth that is critical to atheistic belief is being threaten by ID. He is lashing out the only way he knows how, through mischaracterization and strawman arguments. The only problem is that his speech is woefully ignorant and non sequitur. Continue reading »

Nov 142005
 

I don’t want to give the impression that I am trying to attack Dr. Collins. I am happy to know that he is a brother in Christ. However, I feel that he is seriously in error both theologically and, more importantly in the current context, scientifically. Therefore while I respect his prerogative to practice his faith in anyway that he sees fit, I must oppose his attempt to peddle Darwinism to other Christians.

As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, I hope Dr. Collins would make a 180 degrees turnaround and fight for ID to have a place at the scientific table. I am not asking him to accept the theory of ID, just his support of a scientific debate.

I want to contrast Dr. Collins’ disparaging of ID with another prominent scientist Dr. Schaefer’s support of ID.

Collins: Darwin’s theory is accepted by virtually all mainstream scientists, is not on the brink of collapse (despite what some Christians may say) but is instead supported by “rock solid” evidence from both the fossil record and DNA.

Continue reading »

Nov 072005
 

Let me try to further pontificate on Collins’ appeal to Christians for acceptance of evolution, in hope of making my criticism more clear. The harmony of faith and science that Collins is suggesting would effectively make the Bible subservient to secular science. What Collins wants Christians to do is if there are any conflicts of understanding of the natural world we should submit to secular science without dissent. The Bible must be wrong, because it is just mythology or textual redaction. Collins sees no conflict with faith and science because he has made faith subservient to science.

Ultimately all truth is God’s truth. If the earth is round then it is round for Christians and non-Christians. If Darwinian evolution is truth then it is true for Christians and non-Christians. However, what Collins wants is for Christians not to critically investigate science and blindly accept Darwinian propaganda. Regardless of one’s personal belief, there is plenty of room for skepticism of Darwinian evolution. What Collins is doing makes him look more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think Collins should make a 180 degrees turnaround and fight for ID to have a place at the scientific table. Faith and science does not have to be at odds with each other. For most Christians and this one in particular scientific investigation is a noble endeavor that leads to a greater understanding of the majesty of the Creator. Christians do not fear science because we believe that ultimately true science is congruent with Christian faith. What Dr. Collins should not do is tell fellow Christians to accept junk controversial science that is used to attack the very faith that he professes.

Nov 072005
 

I have the utmost respect for Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts but I am compelled to offer my disagreement with his recent 2 postings on his characterization of Christians and ID, here and here. Although this blog is not as popular or prominent as Telic Thoughts who by Mike Gene’s own acknowledgement is mostly ID evolutionists. This blog is mainly ID Creationists. So this posting will be my response to Mike and Collins’ comments.

Yet Collins can speak to dozens, even hundreds, of churches and I’m afraid the payoff will remain quite meager. The reason is simple; the notion that science and faith conflict is not housed solely within the Church. On the contrary, this is the war cry of those who seek to advance an agenda of secularism.

I agree Collins’ message will not be popular to Christians but not for the reason that Mike thinks. I will explain in a minute. There is a culture war between people of faith and the secularists. However, this is not the reason why Christians reject Darwinism. It is not even because of the jaundice views of Dawkins lending support to Darwinism.
Continue reading »

Oct 172005
 

Dembski at Uncommon Descent quotes Barbara Forrest from her article “The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 35.4 (Dec 2000), 861-889

However, religion cannot help us find meaning in any honest sense unless it can assimilate the truth about where human beings have come from, and the only real knowledge we have about where we came from we have acquired through science.

Consider the words of a staunch atheist like Jean-Paul Sartre. Jean-Paul Sartre was correct in stating that man required an infinite reference point in order for life to have any meaning. Since Sartre didn’t believe there was such a reference point, he stated, “Man is absurd, but he must grimly act as if he were not” and “Man is a useless passion.” Continue reading »

Aug 042005
 

Macroevolutionary Darwinism is a bad speculation that has been presented as such so many times, for example in the book by David C. Stove “Darwinian Fairytales” (free download):

http://www.realist.org/files

As well as David C. Stove’s related article “So You Think You Are a Darwinian?

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/stove_darwinian.htm

Now that public schools will be presenting scientific criticisms to Darwin’s theory in Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, and probably in Kansas and others, I want to have this thread as a place where students can search for related material, mostly as online books and articles.

See some highlights and links to the official document “Critical Analysis of Evolution“:

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/critical.htm

However, as bad as bad speculations are, also are bad those bad interpretations of the Bible, no matter how generalized those private interpretations may be in our society. Continue reading »

 Posted by at 1:45 pm
Aug 012005
 

Here is an example of the fantasy mindset of NASA. In this Tim Russert interview with 3 crew members on Discovery, consider their baseless assertions.

MR. RUSSERT: The question for all of you: planet Earth, in the Milky Way galaxy–Milky Way just one of 100 billion galaxies–do any of you have any doubt that there’s intelligent life beyond Earth?

DR. THOMAS: Well, Tim, you’re quite right, the universe is a vast ocean and we are barely wetting out feet in the beach of that ocean. There are huge distances out there. The immensity is almost unimaginable. Given that, I would say it’s highly likely that there is life somewhere out there in some form, probably a form that’s not even recognizable to us.

DR. CAMARDA: I would say probably odds are there is intelligent life out there.

COL. COLLINS: I also do believe that. I think it would be–it’s kind of unimaginable that, you know, we would really be alone in this universe. I think that, you know, probably not our generation but future generations of people on Earth will find intelligent life.

Let’s carefully analyze their answers for a moment. First, what is the basis for their confidence in the existence of ET life? The universe is a big. It is really big. It’s kind of unimaginable that we are alone in the universe. Do these sound like educated and scientific conclusions? No they sound more like a religious belief and wishful thinking. Continue reading »