Sunday, August 12, 2007

The Limits of Atheism, by David Warren

Interesting read.

Something that we all need to take to heart:

In this case, we must ask ourselves why so many people get so excited about an area of science that should not concern them. For most of these correspondents know precious little science, and haven't the stamina to engage in detailed argument. They are simply shocked and appalled that anyone would dream of challenging what they believe to be the consensus of "qualified experts," whom they assume are a closed camp of hard-bitten materialists, with no time for religious or poetical flights.

The answer to this question is clear enough. People without a stake in a controversy pay little or no attention to it. They will hardly be vexed by assertions of one party or another, when the result of the controversy cannot touch their lives. It is rather when a person does have a stake, that he begins to care.

It follows that my most apoplectic correspondents have a stake in evolutionary controversies. They imagine themselves to have an impersonal interest in defending science against "religious superstition," and the dangers to society that the latter might present. They in fact have strong and uncompromising religious beliefs of their own, which they are loath to have questioned.

I think most of us die-hard advocates for ID are certainly well aware of the religious implications of both ID and evolution. Our worldviews are in question and our beliefs are strong so we question endlessly and try to discern what is true and what is trash. The same goes for the die-hard advocates of Darwinism. Most are involved due to their atheist or agnostic worldview or their anger against those who they believe are out to destroy science and create a theocracy.

If should be possible to allow for discussions on both evolution and ID in our classrooms without considering any part of religious issues, and that is what we should be striving for (together).

More from the article:
It follows that my most apoplectic correspondents have a stake in evolutionary controversies. They imagine themselves to have an impersonal interest in defending science against "religious superstition," and the dangers to society that the latter might present. They in fact have strong and uncompromising religious beliefs of their own, which they are loath to have questioned.

Yes, atheists and agnostics have strong belief systems of their own. They have their own secular and humanistic groups, they teach, preach and proselytize. PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are the equivalent of atheists priest, but atheists simply don't see it. Here's a cute picture of lego PZ with his new atheist logo that he's pushing people to wear and embrace and share their atheism. He needs to wake up and smell that cup of coffee he's holding...atheism is a faith belief - no different, and in some situations, no less fanatic than some forms of religion.

The the author of the article gives an obvious nod to Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution:

Meanwhile the edifice of official atheist materialism crumbles, under the pressure of actual scientific inquiry. Mr. Behe's recent book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, does a fairly good job of surveying the three iron struts from which Darwinism was welded: random mutation, natural selection, and common descent. He is able to leave only this last standing.

...and goes on to to write:

This last week we learned of the collapse of one of the latest props of "deep evolutionism," which was also one of the earliest (the ancient Greeks first thought of it): The very popular "panspermian" hypothesis that life was first seeded on the earth by materials arriving in comets. It has been kicked away by Paul Falkowski, and other biologists and oceanographers from Rutgers and Boston universities, studying DNA samples frozen in the Antarctic ice. (See, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.) They showed nothing of any earthly genetic use could have survived.

Like every other modern essay in "evolutionism" (i.e. evolution as a religious cosmology), the idea behind panspermianism is to transfer the problem of life's origin on earth, out of the finite space and time of the earth's own geological history, and into some abstract place where the laws of chance have an infinite amount of time to do whatever is necessary. But the game is almost up. We can now roughly date the origin of our universe, and 15 billion years more-or-less is proving much too short a time for random processes to produce a non-random result. Fifteen billion times 15 billion years is still not nearly enough time.

Those who refuse to acknowledge God, will not give up. Most have by now moved on to hypotheses about "multiple universes," in the hope that by allowing an infinite number of other universes in which random processes produced random results, we can excuse this one for being so exceptionally non-random.

A Joke for Ian

Ian was quite put off with my request that we pray for the troups in a previous post. I’ve been told there is the possibility that the part about Churchhill in the first couple paragraphs of that post may be an urban legend.

But, here is a joke that I think Ian would appreciate, or at least I hope so. Everyone is so touchy about some of these issues (including me) that you never know how the things you write will be taken.

Working With God

A farmer purchases an old, run-down, abandoned farm with plans to turn it into a thriving enterprise. The fields are grown over with weeds, the farmhouse is falling apart, and the fences are collapsing all around.

During his first day of work, the town preacher stops by to bless the man's work, saying, "May you and God work together to make this the farm of your dreams!"A few months later, the preacher stops by again to call on the farmer. Lo and behold, it's like a completely different place -- the farm house is completely rebuilt and in excellent condition, there are plenty of cattle and other livestock happily munching on feed in well-fenced pens, and the fields are filled with crops planted in neat rows. "Amazing!" the preacher says. "Look what God and you have accomplished together!"

"Yes, Reverend," says the farmer, "but remember what the farm was like when God was working it alone!"

Like that one, Ian? *wink*

Saturday, August 11, 2007

A Good example of why Evolutionists won't debate Proponents of Intelligent Design

Here is a link to a "conversation" between Dr. Brace and Dr. Behe at the Cranbrook Institute of Science.

Dr. C. Loring Brace, professor and curator of biological anthropology at the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, will present a synopsis of the evidence for organic evolution.

Dr. Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, will summarize the evidence for intelligent design.

The third participant in the conversation is the audience through questions and comments following the speakers.

I'm convinced that if we could get Discovery Institute ID proponents out in full force debating evolutionists in every possible venue, Darwinism (not evolution, as Behe again explains in the above link) would be in dire straights.

The problem is that Darwinists have proclaimed it unwise to debate...listen to the audio above to better understand why.

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Scientists discover largest known planet

Nature is amazing.

Scientists have discovered the universe's largest known planet, a giant ball made of mostly hydrogen that is 20 times larger than Earth and circling a star 1,400 light-years away.


"There is probably not a really firm surface anywhere on the planet. You would sink into it," said Georgi Mandushev, a research scientist at Lowell Observatory and lead author of an article announcing the finding in the peer-reviewed Astrophysical Journal Letters.


"It's just letting us know that nature has some surprises for us ... a much wider range of possibility than we could imagine," Boss said.

He said scientists "can't understand why these so-called fluffy planets are so fluffy. It really is a mystery, just how they can be so low-density."


I woke up at 3:30am the other night and couldn't sleep, so I went out on our top deck and star gazed for awhile. It's so difficult for me to understand how some view our universe as nothing other than the result of a materlistic blurp in time.

Another tall and small example

Just like my previous example on human variability, here are a couple horses whose skeletal remains would be vastly difference, yet guess what? They're still both horses!

Thumbelina, who weighs 4st 9lb, was born on a farm in St Louis, Missouri.

Her owners breed miniature horses but Thumbelina is a further quirk of nature - a miniature of a miniature.

She eats two cups of grain and a handful of hay each day.

Radar, at 6ft 71/2in from hoof to shoulder, is from Mount Pleasant, Texas.

At 2,400lb, he has a giant appetite to match, putting away 20 gallons of water a day and 18lb of grain.

More here.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Mrs. President??

I was visiting my parents today, and as usual, we touched on politics. My Dad made the prediction that Hillary will be our next President (he seems to be sure about this). Don't worry though, his accuracy on predictions are usually 70-30. There's still a decent chance he's off kilter on this one.

God help us if he's right...

But, then again, I hope the Democrats take everything in the next election. Let's see how they solve our problems since they seem to think that Bush and the Republican party are the root of all evil. I heard something on TV the other day alluding to the notion that Bush was even at fault for the MN bridge disaster. Poor guy takes a beating for virtually everything that goes wrong in the US, doesn't he?