Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Global Warming Day-By-Day



Global Warming - as exposed in the pages of Day By Day I love this cartoon strip, which is presented daily, because it presents a dialogue between viewpoints and yet is skewed towards the common-sense and wise (that is, my point of view)!



Global Warming - It's another one of those pseudo-scientific movements that is both unproven and immensely popular, particularly with those on the lefty side of the ideological aisle. I am not entirely sure why, frankly. Taking measures to decrease dependence on fossil fuels is not a bad thing, as long as those measures don't hamper the economy greatly. But then again, it is these same people who have blocked the expansion of nuclear energy as a power source. Faulty logic, or what?



I have found that whatever Greenpeace wants is usually stupid. I remember discussing the limits on logging in the Western States imposed during the Clinton years with a couple of logging state officials. They bemoaned the lost revenue to the tax revenues and the joblessness created by the reduced logging. They then pointed out how more forest fires now resulted from the new rules. Truth was, if you didn't log the forests, they would catch on fire and "log" themselves. Boneheaded liberals strike again! Now here comes Global Warming and if it really catches on, more troubles for our economy. I have found that it is the little guys who catch it on the chin first when the economy falls. So Global Warming might as well be a euphemism for "Excuse to hurt the economy and increase the number of poor people" as far as I am concerned. Comments to follow...

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Thanks to liberals and evolutionists and atheists, too!



I just realized that I have now been blogging for a year's time!!!

Thanks to all who post comments on my site. I appreciate so much my friends who tend to agree with me! But I also wish to thank my erstwhile ideological opponents as well. I would like to say that the vast majority of dissenting opinions being expressed here have been classy, or at least not incredibly rude and vulgar. In addition, a great deal of good information has been transmitted by commenters and I would say that up to ten percent of my posts have been responses to comments that were worthy of reply. To all of you, my readers both occasional and regular, those who comment and those who simply look in, go my sincere thanks!

The pictures? Old photos of the guys and girls of the family. I will get around to newer ones later but these were kind of fun so here you are.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Loboinok 1, Global Warming 0

Lobo's comments were so good I am giving him the head of this column:

Loboinok's thoughts!!!

If someone denies something that's generally accepted, on the basis of deeply flawed or long-discredited arguments, then I think we have to question whether they really understand their field. (from a commenter)

1960’s: Paul Ehrlich warned the US that a coming disaster was going to happen in 1980. The global population boom would leave 60 million US citizens to starve to death. Did not happen. The UN actually has reduced their population every decade since 1970.

1970’s: Scientist proclaim “change in climate” points to coming ice age. Did not happen.

1980’s: Scientist claim power lines cause cancer. Wrong.

1990’s cell phones cause cancer. All because of electro magnetic currents. Not true…today people wear magnetic bracelets and sleep on magnetic pads for the benefits of the current.

Eggs were good for us, then bad, now good,again.

Beer and wine was good for us, then bad, now good, again.

So, is global warming happening as "scientists" claim it is?


Global Warming is Real
And It’s Happening on Mars! (nationalsummary.com)


Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find

M.I.T. Edu.



Global Warming on Jupiter: Hubble Telescope

Science Astronomy


Neptune’s Moon Getting Warmer: Hubble Telescope

news.bbc.co.uk


Looks as though SUVs are messing up the whole Solar system.

That's 4 planets out of 9...oops 8. Scientists can't even make up their minds as to what constitutes a planet.

--

Thanks, Lobo. You know, it seems that the Weather Channel's Meteorological spokesperson (Dr. Heidi Cullen, "Climate Expert") has a degree in Eastern Religion from Juniata college and doesn't even understand the Coriolis Effect - She didn't know that Cyclones in the Southern Hemisphere rotate the opposite direction from Hurricanes in the Northern Hemisphere! That is akin to presenting oneself and a basketball coach and not knowing the NBA has a 24 second shot clock! Yet, all sorts of commenters place her on the side of "science."

For instance, this comment after I revealed that all sorts of Meteorologists were angry that she was suggesting witholding certification from anyone who didn't agree with Global Warming:

1. not that I'm defending al gore or anything, but he didn't just jump on the global warming bandwagon last year. I forgot the exact time frame, but to accuse the man of that is wrong.

I don't much care about Al Gore, but I am pretty sure he isn't a scientist and why anyone would see him as such is puzzling to me.

2. Oh no! People changed their minds about global warming! How dare they! What you think is what you think, right? How could anyone actually take more data over 20 years, realize their original opinion was wrong, and revise their stance on an issue????? Liars.

Ah, derision! My favorite argument.

3. I still don't see the reasons liberals would lie about Global Warming.

I could speculate endlessly, but who cares? Whether some lie and some are simply wrong, the evidence is not strong at all according to meterologists in general. Cyclical changes in weather patterns would be the Occam's Razor answer and not a general pattern of warming.

On a humorous note, though, I would love to see someone Photoshop Al Gore as Chicken Little! Hmm, or maybe the Little Boy Who Cried, "Warmth"! Hahahahaha! Any Photoshoppers out there?

Postscript courtesy of DayByDay

Friday, January 26, 2007

The Agnostic Scientist

Thanks to Lava for this comment:

"In response to the bias and prejudice of the "natural materialist" and the "religious scientist". Do you not see and acknowledge your prejudice? If you were a scientist, could you really be objective? Wouldn't your unwavering belief in the inerrency of the Bible and God just direct you to solutions like a young earth, a flood, and dinosaurs living with humans? Just because the fictional scientist you can take into account the supernatural won't make you a better scientist. The fact that your unwavering belief in the supernatural leads you to certain conclusions means you have the same problems as the "naturalistic materialist." Following YOUR logic from YOUR original post- the best scientist has to be agnostic. Everyone else is biased."

Before the 19th century, you would find that the majority of scientists were Theists, or at the least, Deists. The Atheist was a rare bird then. But there was a refreshing atmosphere in those times. Most scientists checked their belief systems at the door of inquiry and simply did their best work with the information at hand. This is why Galileo, a believer, ignored the teachings of the church and posited his positions that the Earth was not central to the Universe. He wasn't interested in either disproving the church nor defending it, rather, he was looking for truth. I greatly admire his position!

Lava, I was an agnostic who believed in evolution and, if you check on old posts, you'll see I even took courses in order to become a Paleontologist because I considered it a possible career choice. I was a collector of various small creatures and rocks and fossils since I was a small child. My parents always tried to have an entire room devoted to me and while they would call it the playroom, it was a refuge for various things like worm farms and pond-water aquariums and horned toads and cocoons-that-turned-to-moths, etc. I've been hooked on studying nature since I was, oh, five or so.

I grew up in an area in which many fossils (and arrowheads, for that matter) could be found. Most of them were the standard bivalves and other water creatures, including a pretty good treasure trove of trilobites. I would sometimes find areas with hundreds of trilobite fossils and occasionally have found a complete specimen. Oh, sure, I found ferns and fish and fossilized nuts and so on as well. I found geodes and tried hard to begin learning the names of different kinds of rocks that I would encounter. Yep, I was becoming an amateur scientist even as I was learning to read and write. It was just a part of my life.

In my mid-twenties I became a believer and then I read through Genesis and the Old Testament and found how it greatly differed from things I'd been taught in school...and magazines and books and the radio and TV and movies...and I had a crisis. What would I believe? Well, I was sure I believed in God and I was sure that I believed in fossils and I decided to apply the scientific method to the problem. That's right, I was a believer but I approached the evidence from an agnostic point of view, looking to see which view of origins and the fossil record was more likely to be correct. To my amazement, the Biblical account was far more in agreement with the evidence than was the idea of evolution. I then wondered why so many people believed otherwise? Well, of course, they were taught to believe it! But, why? I came to the conclusion that the worldview of scientists and professors of the 19th and 20th (and now 21st) centuries drove their science and not a pure search for truth. I was dismayed but over time I have come to accept and even understand it all. Those who wish to deny God will seek to eradicate all mention of Him if it is possible.

Whether a man is an atheist or a believer, as a scientist he is certainly best if he approaches his craft from an agnostic point of view. He may find the supernatural involved and he may not, but he doesn't have a predisposition to either exclude or include the supernatural. He is driven strictly by the motive of finding out what is true and what is real. I do wish this is what we see in the real world.

Millions of man-hours go to waste as both sides of the Creation versus evolution issue spend time looking for evidence to support their respective positions rather than seeking answers that benefit mankind or add to our knowledge base in a more positive way. Much of science has become warfare, a battle for the minds and hearts of mankind rather than the search for truth. Philosophical agendas drive a great deal of what is done on both sides of the aisle.

I enjoy going to sites such as Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis because it is truly a war. But I wish there was no need for those sites. Phyrangula and TalkOrigins and such sites promote evolutionary speculation as settled fact as part of the battle to remove God from public thought and so I turn to and support sites that fight against their aims. Since there is a war, then baby I'm going to grab my weapon and join the fight! Too bad some of the time trying to prove or disprove evolution isn't being spent fighting cancer or lupus and etc. Ah, but it is what it is.

In any event, Lava, I am going to surprise you and agree with you. The agnostic approach is the best way to approach science. These days, it is apparently also a rarity.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Is your point of view loaded? Responses to comments.

Some of the comments back from recent posts have really caught my attention. For instance:

"How do we know that Global Warming is a hoax? Who decided to invent it? What do they get out of it? How have they recruited so many scientists to their nefarious cause? The Anti-Global-Warming side needs to start answering these questions if they want me to take them seriously."

Its gotta be Gore. Or Hillary. Or (put name of another democrat here). They (pick one: don't believe in God, hate the bible, eat their children, or have a parent killed by the oil companies).

Oh, wait. Strike that. Its gotta be ACLU. Aren't they to blame for everything?"


Uhm, didn't you follow the link? Most of the people who were objecting to the idea of "Global Warming" as a done deal were meteorologists, yep, those people who study the weather. Your sarcasm aside, Mr. Commenter, you have no real argument. How many of the "Global Warming" crowd were warning of a New Ice Age twenty years ago? There simply isn't enough evidence to detect a trend towards warming or cooling that is anything other than normal variation.

As to their possible agenda, it is possible Al Gore was just looking for another fifteen minutes of fame and perhaps another way in to the White House. Who knows? But I do know that radical measures to stop "Global Warming" will hurt our economy and are disastrous for some third world countries like Madagascar, who cannot utilize many of the natural resources due to struggles with do-gooder environmentalists who sometimes seem to value termites above humans. I suppose some are just crusading idiots with little common sense, but then, that is just an opinion...as is the idea that there is such a thing as "Global Warming."

Here's another excerpt:

"So I've got some sympathy with the idea of giving the FCC its teeth back. "Public interest" is a little hard to define, but I think it could work if we had a genuinely nonpartisan agency like the GAO to oversee it.

On the other hand, the broadcast spectrum isn't as important as it used to be. Maybe it would be better to just throw out all pretense that the airwaves belong to America-as-a-whole, and just sell everything off to the highest bidder with no restrictions at all.

I do think the current set of restrictions are unfair. I mean, how can we let Rush Limbaugh tell whatever lies he wants with his bare face hanging out, and then turn around and tell Janet Jackson, "You can't expose your breast at a football game! It's not in the public interest!" Can we all agree that the FCC was being disgustingly hypocritical there?"


Whoa, did I just here a call for government control of the content of the airwaves because of the politics of the broadcaster? Who is to say that Rush Limbaugh is lying about anything and Al Franken tells the truth? They are both people with admitted agendas and they are giving opinions on talk radio! Opinions! Do you really wish to allow government to decide whose opinions are allowed to be broadcast? Yeah, that worked for Mussolini and Hitler and Stalin and it is standard fare in Iran but it is decidedly un-American. Unbelievable!!!

"Radar said: "Again I say, the scientist who is able to consider both natural and supernatural solutions to scientific problems is the better scientist, for he is able to come to the best conclusion unfettered by the prejudices of the naturalistic materialist. Let truth win out!"

Let's say, for simplicity's sake, there are three types of scientists.
(1)Atheist scientists who completely deny the existence of God.
(2)Agnostic scientists who claim that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists or not.
(3)"Religious" scientists. We will say they are YECs for the purpose of this discussion.

You seem to be concerned with the biases and prejudices of the atheist scientist- that they are unable to consider the supernatural. Isn't there a like problem with our "Religious" scientists? If the inability to consider the supernatural in atheist scientists is a probelm, then unwavering faith in truth of the Bible and God is a similar problem. The YEC will only see the YEC solution. They are subject to an opposite, but equally important, prejudice. Thus, following this line of reasoning, the only scientist who is free from prejudices is the agnostic scientist.

Let us only read and believe what the agnostic scientist has to say then. (OK- I don't really believe this- I think scientists' beliefs are immaterial to their worth as scientists as I've said before)"


Perhaps you are a slave to your point of view to the extreme that you cannot understand what I am saying. I am saying that the best scientist begins with no pre-existing prejudices before examining evidences and making hypotheses. You think it is perfectly fine for a scientist to begin by saying to himself, "No matter what, I must eliminate the supernatural from all possible solutions to the problem I am about to approach scientifically." You cannot see the bias there? Wow.

Suppose we have a scientist who says, "No matter what, I must eliminate the natural from all possible solutions to the problem I am about to approach scientifically." The all you are going to get is Scientology and Psychics. Wow again. No, the best scientists are willing to find the truth no matter where it leads them. Now, in most fields of study the supernatural is not relevant. But most is not all, and so some areas of study suffer from a preponderance of naturalistic materialists who will ignore Occam's Razor for the sake of their own belief systems, truth be damned!

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

One of the faces of the Men in Iraq


I'll be posting tomorrow for sure, sorry to leave some great comments hanging until then. But this is of greater importance! This guy is my "Godson" Cecil, an Army Lieutenant in charge of 30 men. He and his men have the job of hunting IED's (roadside bombs) in and around Baghdad. Like being a Sheriff in the days of Boot Hill, he finds plenty to do. If you pray, kindly pray for him and his men. Thanks!

This picture was taken in Indianapolis when he was last here on leave. I have it on good authority that the next time he comes home, he has a special girl he is going to ask to marry him. He is due back sometime around May of this year. God bless you, Cecil!

Saturday, January 20, 2007

The New Dark Ages - Orwellian Humanists seek to stifle dissent

Disclaimer: I am aware that today's Catholic Church is not the same Church that dominated the Middle Ages and committed gross sins against humanity, so this is not a diatribe against the Catholics of today. It is certainly true that I believe the Church of the Middle Ages was home to great evils, as you will see as you read on.

Delving into history deeply would take months, so to begin this discussion I am going to use shorthand to bring us up to the terror of today. The Dark Ages is usually referring to the early Middle Ages of about 500 to 1000 AD or so. The Middle Ages, as they are now called, would continue up unto the Age of Enlightenment in the minds of some and at least until around 1600 or so for others. Often we think of the entire Medieval period as Dark Ages. In terms of the advance of knowledge, there never was truly a totally Dark Age. But in Western Civilization there were dark times, times of the Inquisition and the totalitarian rule of the Catholic Church in league with secular leaders of the time that made it dangerous for the men and women of the time to express thoughts counter to the opinions of the ruling class (The Clergy and Kings). Hopefully I don't need to go on about the hideous tortures and murders committed in the name of God that were actually all about freedom of speech and dissent and man's right to worship any way that he believes to be right. The Church supposedly represented God but was actually more of a political organization that oppressed the people and kept the rulers rich and allowed them to satiate their basest desires. There were Popes back in the day that were so evil that commoners hid their daughters from them. The Church actually began selling "indulgences" as an additional money-making scheme. The clergy would charge common folk a price to be forgiven for sins, to ensure a dead relative would make it into heaven, to forgive the sins of another and so on.

In my opinion, there were two great movements that were born in response to this tyranny that repressed the thoughts and deeds of those who did not agree with the rulers and the Church: The Reformation and the Renaissance.

The Renaissance, or Rebirth, is generally thought to have begun in Italy in the 1500's. The Reformation can point to the year 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses to the church door.

The Reformation was about freeing God from the tyranny of man. That is, taking God from the grasp of the ruling clergy and kings and giving the worship of God back to man. Luther wanted to worship and think as a free man, rather than being told how to worship and think. His act of rebellion in the form of those Theses began a movement that led to printing presses and the ability of the common man to own his own Bible and worship as he saw fit. It meant that the common man would learn to read and eventually that education would be available to the masses. This was revolutionary indeed! There would be no democracies, no United States of America, without freedom of religion and education for the masses.

The Renaissance was about freeing man from the tyranny of God. That is, the elitists of the day lumped the Church and God in together and decided that they needed to abandon both. Naturalistic Materialism became Humanism as the concept of God was abandoned along with the evils of the Church.

So on the one hand, common man began to become educated and freedom of worship a valued right that was wrestled over for centuries. Gutenberg built his printing press in order to print Bibles. It was in seeking freedom of worhsip that the Pilgrims emigrated to these shores and helped establish the USA. The first schools used the Bible as a textbook and in the early days of our country it was often the only book a man owned and had ever read. Yet, the USA was not formed to be a theocracy, for we had learned that to try to mix God and government led to disaster.

For the elite, who had the money to be educated and access to such education long before any Reformations took place, the Renaissance was a time to cast off God and seek humanistic philosophies. Of course, many of the elite were actually believers who continued to believe, but there was a goodly number of agnostics and atheists who sought to find ways to make God irrelevant. This kind of thinking led humanistic scientists to revisit various aspects of science and seek to find ways of excluding God. Thus, Lyell could posit a school of Geological thought that needed no flood, and the Darwins (Erasmus and Charles) could posit a school of Biological thought that needed no Creator, and so on.

History repeats itself. Now I see signs that the secularists are beginning to take over thought itself and seek to establish a tyranny of established thoughts equal to the tyranny of the Medieval Church! The evidences are all around you. Evolutionists have fought the teaching of Creationism in public schools and have often convinced gullible judges to agree. Scientists as thought police! I have shown one and all that evolution is nothing more than an unproven hypothesis that a majority of scientists agree with based upon philosophical rather than scientific grounds and yet now many teachers, by law, are forced to only present evolution as an answer to where life may have come from. This is a crime against freedom of thought!

I was accosted for having the temerity to question evolutionists and responded in "The Lords of Evolution do not deign the peasantry shall opine!"

Recently, I posted The New Inquisition in which Gary DeMarr reveals how widespread that thought tyranny has become in the sciences and media.

I can now point to two more pieces of evidence that our freedoms are in danger of being eroded in the name of Political Correctness and Humanism. George Orwell would understand my alarm.

First, the sciences are continuing to be co-opted by Humanists who seek to stifle all opposing points of view. Here is an excerpt from a column by Melanie Morgan:

What had been nice about The Weather Channel is that through most of its history it stayed clear of political propaganda and focused on delivering weather forecasts to the nation, supplemented with riveting live reports from the front lines of hurricanes, winter blizzards and springtime floods.

But no more. The Weather Channel is now engaged in a con job on the American people, attempting to scare the public that their actions are destroying the planet by creating a global warming crisis.

The move away from scientific forecasting of the weather to sensationalized leftist political advocacy is in part due to the influence of Wonya Lucas, executive vice president and general manager of The Weather Channel Networks.

Lucas admitted in a recent interview with Media Village that the reprogramming of The Weather Channel was influenced by her tenure at CNN when that network shifted from presenting straight news to personality-driven programming.

Lucas decided that what was good for CNN was good for The Weather Channel, and the objectivity and respectability of the network has now been thrown out the window. It doesn't matter that CNN's turn to the left has caused their ratings to plummet; The Weather Channel's embraced its model.

Media Village reported that the move by The Weather Channel "is intended to establish a broader perspective on the weather category and, says Lucas, to move the brand from functional to emotional."

Emotional weather forecasting?

The Weather Channel is launching a new website and broadband channel dedicated solely to global warming called "One Degree" and has a weekly program called "The Climate Code," devoted almost entirely to liberal advocacy on climate matters.

The network is running advertisements showcasing scared and confused Americans, including children and senior citizens, wondering about the coming apocalypse caused by global warming. (You can view the ad for yourself here.)

The chief martyr for the new "emotional" approach to broadcasting at The Weather Channel is Dr. Heidi Cullen, who serves as the network's cheerleader for global warming hysteria. Cullen's supposed expertise on climatology includes, among other things, earning a bachelor's degree in Near Eastern religions and history from Juniata College. One must indeed have to believe in the mystical to accept anything Ms. Cullen has to say about climatology.

Writing for the One Degree blog, Ms. Cullen recently threw a hissy fit that some meteorologists are openly questioning the conclusions drawn by the Greenpeace crowd about the nature, extent, causes and even existence of global warming.

Cullen's diatribe, titled "Junk Controversy Not Junk Science," called on the American Meteorological Society to start requiring all meteorologists to toe the line on liberal interpretation of global warming, or else lose the organization's certification.

George Orwell's 1984 couldn't have concocted a better form of thought control.

The global warming crowd, led by arrogant hustlers such as Heidi Cullen at The Weather Channel, has set up a no-lose situation for themselves.

Climatology is by definition the study of long-term climate trends, and it will indeed be many decades or longer before any definitive conclusions about even the existence of global warming – let alone its causes – can be determined to be true or false. This means that Cullen and her cohorts can't be held accountable for their erroneous beliefs.

Even still, we can see how foolish it is to allow people like Heidi Cullen to influence decision-makers to impose further restrictions and regulations on the actions of human beings. Global warming scaremongers jumped on the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the busy 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and went on to predict that 2006 would be a potentially devastating year of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Ocean.

As it was, not one single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

If forecasters can't reliably tell us what will happen in two to three months from now, why would anyone trust that they know what will happen with the weather in 50 or 100 years from now and let them tell us how to live our lives accordingly?

This is all about Big Brother do-gooders trying to control how you live your life, and stripping away the freedoms and liberties of people to live their lives as they see fit, engage in commerce and raise their families.

There's a con job going on at The Weather Channel, and it's time that viewers let the network know it's time to stop the liberal politicization of weather reporting.


If you go ahead and read Cullen's post at One degree, you will be amazed at the responses to her statement (hopefully the responses have not yet been removed). There is tremendous opposition among climatologists and other scientists to her assertions. It seems that among weathermen, the tyranny of thought common among many of the other sciences has not made much headway, thankfully. But how long will that last?


Second, there is the call by the Democrats to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine." David Limbaugh said in response:

Beware of liberals using such words as "fairness." In resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine," liberals are trying to kill conservative talk radio and restore their media monopoly. Period. The doctrine would selectively stifle free political discourse, which is essential for our representative government.

The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation in force from 1949 to 1987, required broadcasters to present "both sides" of controversial issues. During that time, liberals had a virtual monopoly on the media.

Since the rule was repealed, conservative talk radio has exploded -- Rush Limbaugh launched his syndicated radio show in 1988 -- and other media outlets multiplied: the Internet, including blogs, cable and satellite TV and satellite radio, among others. The conservative viewpoint has fared quite well in the new media.

This is not to say that the government's elimination of the regulation discriminated against the liberal message. The liberal viewpoint still dominates the mainstream media, cable TV, except for Fox News, and the overwhelming number of major print media outlets. Liberals also have equal access to new media outlets, though they've had enormous difficulty competing in the marketplace of ideas.

It's instructive to remember that while conservatives grew hoarse complaining about the monolithic liberal message, they didn't advocate suppression of liberal speech. Their remedy, instituted -- fittingly -- in the Reagan years, was to open up, not constrict or regulate the media market.

The results have been dramatic, with conservatives finally having a significant voice in the media, albeit mostly in the new media, though a singular liberal message still prevails in the old media, not to mention public broadcasting.

Liberals can't stand the competition. Democratic Congressman Maurice Hinchey is sponsoring the "Media Ownership Reform Act," whose proposed reforms include the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Hinchey denies wanting to muzzle conservative hosts. But, "This will ensure that different views … will also be heard. … People are being prevented from getting the right information." Really? Latest polls show 60 percent of Americans are opposed to the Iraq war. Will Hinchey not be satisfied until it's 90 percent?

This is nothing but abject sophistry. Different views are already heard -- and not just in the mainstream media. There have never been more media choices. Nothing -- except consumer resistance -- precludes liberal entry into the talk radio market. But the First Amendment doesn't require people to listen to and support your message.

Liberals had no interest in balance before the advent of conservative talk radio. They don't have any interest in balance now; indeed we're finally approaching a balance: new media versus old media. But to them "balance" means dominance, just like "bipartisanship" means Republican capitulation.

With the Fairness Doctrine liberals would use government to micromanage the content of talk radio, realizing that they simply can't compete on an equal playing field in that medium. Notably, they aren't advocating balancing the messages of the major print or broadcast media giants.

The reason liberals can't compete in talk radio, besides their hosts being boring, oppressively cynical and pessimistic, is that their would-be audience is already fed through the mainstream media.

Conversely, conservative talk has been successful, not just because it is more entertaining, professional and optimistic, but because conservative audiences were starved for a likeminded message.

The liberals' goal is not balance, but to destroy conservative talk radio by requiring that each nano-segment of every show contain the counterbalancing liberal viewpoint, instead of relying on other shows or other media to deliver that viewpoint. What will they demand next: that political candidates present both sides of every issue to ensure balance?

Such draconian hyper-monitoring would destroy those programs. Besides, there is no fair, sensible or practicable way to regulate content. Objectivity is impossible over such subjective matters.

What do the paternalistic proponents of the regulations mean by the representation of "all sides?" Would the terrorist viewpoint deserve equal time? Don't laugh, many believe that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and liberals routinely sympathize with tyrannical dictators like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What is truly scary is that liberals believe that media outlets predominately presenting their viewpoint are not biased. To them, the liberal viewpoint is objectively correct -- the only proper way to view the world -- and the conservative one, aberrant and reality-challenged, not even deserving of First Amendment protection. Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not much.

This arrogant mindset is what has troubled conservatives for years. It's not just that the mainstream media has presented a monolithic liberal message; it's that they denied their bias and purported to be completely objective in their selection and reporting of the news and commentary. At least with conservative talk, the hosts admit their bias and are honest about when they are editorializing.

The Fairness Doctrine must be stopped again, dead in its tracks.


There is a movement in this country to throw God out of society and establish a system of thought policing that will silence all voices that disagree with the Humanists in all fields, whether political or philosophical or scientific. I will not go down silently and I will not go down without a fight! You who teach evolutionary fantasy as fact in the schools and go to court to rid the concept of God from society, who attempt to control the sciences and the media, you are like the dark-caped figures of the Inquisition, seeking to replace free thought with your own brand of propaganda, thus brainwashing the masses. How long before you set up your 21st century versions of auto de fe? Heidi Cullen is ready to cast the careers of dissenting meterorologists into the fire and Dennis Kucinich and his liberal Democratic cohorts are ready and willing to throw the First Amendment in right behind. How can you justify this, O Humanist? I await responses.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

"the real struggle between science and the supernatural" continues

Dialogue with Creeper, with his comments italicized and mine not...

Hi Radar, and a happy new year to you and your loved ones.

I haven't been around for a while, both due to enjoying the holidays and being pretty busy before and after, but I do intend on commenting on some of your posts as soon as I can, especially the "rapid speciation" one that you are so fond of.


Good, if you have something to say concerning rapid speciation I'll be glad to hear it. Thanks for the kind wishes and the same to you and yours!

As for this post, it appears to cover well-trodden ground, and cranky and I never tire of asking you to name even a single scientific discovery in which a supernatural explanation was in any way a contribution.

I have also covered this ground before. It was a belief that a logic and wise God was the Creator that encouraged scientists to look for logic and order in the creation. They were willing to invest their entire lives seeking answers, confident that all was not random and that order could be discerned with enough research and time expended to discern them. As it happens, scientists have been so rewarded, for their is logic and order to the Universe even as we learn how much more complex and amazing it is as we go forth.

Second, supernatural explanations have to do with beginnings, with design, with first causes rather than actions that can be taken now, for as we know from the laws of thermodynamics that nothing is now being either created or destroyed. To discern that God created, and how He created, is one thing. To expect to wield supernatural forces like a sword is beyond us and not to be expected.

Third, any time a supernatural explanation is offered to humanists, they reject it out of hand no matter what the evidence, for they have a presupposition that the supernatural cannot be. There can be no change in the attitude of a naturalistic materialist towards the supernatural until there is a change in the naturalistic materialist himself.

Want some explanations? All things exist because God created them. The amazing rock records found around the world are evidences of a world-wide flood. Water has such unusual and amazing properties because it was necessary for God to design it as such for life to sustain itself on this planet. DNA is found as the blueprint for all living things because all living things had the same designer. I could go on and on, but only those who are not blind to the possibilities of the supernatural are even able to receive these explanations. Anything But God is always in operation.

You name Newton, Kelvin and others, but all of them adhered to methodological naturalism in their scientific explorations. Their individual worldviews may have been Christian or whatever, but when they got down to their work as scientists, they adhered to strict naturalism/materialism - no mention of the supernatural in their discoveries.

You are 100%, totally and remarkably WRONG!!!!! You are so wrong it is rather humorous. Newton slung references to God around like pro athletes sling cusswords. But let us examine said method to which you refer. It was designed by a believer, Francis Bacon, and it makes no mention whatever of natural or supernatural at all. None. In fact, Bacon saw that the inductive method of Aristotle was incorrect because it began with a presupposition/axiom and proceeded from there. This is the very folly of so many of today's naturalistic materialists, that they have reverted to Aristotle by beginning with the axiom that only natural causes and explanations may be accepted.

Bacon suggested a better way, commonly known as the Scientific Method, and allow me to quote from the Physics Department of the University of California:

"The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
(Eventually a theory that is tested over and over with the same results is proclaimed to be a Law - radar)

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded."

Now, a naturalistic materialist brings his faith into the picture, being sure that there is no supernatural or no God, and therefore doesn't allow for any conclusions that support that point of view. The believing scientist sees all possibilities in place as he looks for answers.

And so it is today - not all scientists are atheists, and plenty of religious folk go to church on Sunday and adhere to materialism in the science lab during the week - because the supernatural is not useful in their research, and never has been. If you disagree (as you obviously do), then name an example in which it has been useful.

The idea of the supernatural is largely about beginnings, and so for the most part doesn't enter into most aspects of scientific studies. But often scientists have been in defacto agreement with the idea that God created. For instance, man now can manufacture diamonds (Oh, so millions of years under pressure are not needed?) and is working to perfect ways of converting garbage into artificial "fossil fuels" as if acknowledging a world that is thousands rather than millions of years old. Nano-Engineers may not voice the idea that God designs better machines than man, but they study and try to copy them as if they are fantastic designs rather than chance occurences. No, the supernatural is not so useful in research for what is sought out, but rather for what is understood to be useful courses of study. Thousands of scientists will waste millions of hours looking for a way in which life may have come from non-life, even though the simple and unprejudiced use of the scientific method would conclude that, yes, God did create life and life does not and will not arise from non-life. I can only hope that important discoveries take place more-or-less by mistake as these scientists waste their efforts. Waste, I say, because they reject the scientific method they claim to use and seek a philosopher's stone that does not exist!

"Again I say, the scientist who is able to consider both natural and supernatural solutions to scientific problems is the better scientist, for he is able to come to the best conclusion unfettered by the prejudices of the naturalistic materialist. Let truth win out!"

Yep, standing by that statement as supported above.

If that were true, then places like the Discovery Institute would be engaged in actual research and coming up with scientific advances that scientists using mere naturalistic methods could only dream of. Let truth win out indeed...

The Discovery Institute is probably dedicated more to ending the Dark Ages of Enquiry in which the scientific community is now chained. They fight to allow better science to be taught in schools and for research to take place free from the despots of naturalistic materialism that cut off grants, discourage peer reviews and deny tenure to those who do not adhere to the party line of humanistic and evolutionist thought. Many of you, my readers, are ignorantly wrapped in chains of such thinking and cannot GROK what I say. I will go further down this road in a subsequent post. But allow me to footnote with a short dialogue with Lava:

Just really how do you integrate the supernatural into science? Do you just come to a point where you can't explain something and say "God must have done that"? How do we alter the scientific method to account for the supernatural? This would be easier if PKE meters or Giga meters were real.

If you read above, you will see that I don't want the scientific method to be changed at all. I just want scientists to quit putting the materialistic axiom in front of it, thus directing enquiry in one direction only and certainly frustrating truth in the process.

You throw around the term "better scientist". Better in what way? Are we talking about a specific field of science? You say "the scientist who is able to consider both natural and supernatural solutions to scientific problems is the better scientist". Don't we "rank" scientists based on their contributions to their respective fields, not on their underlying beliefs? If Jonas Salk was a devout atheist(not sure what his background is, just throwing a name out there), are his discoveries diminished by his atheistic beliefs?

Well, if Newton was a Christian, do we throw out everything he learned? Should we shut down all space exploration because Von Braun believed in God? Is the study of Physics flawed because of how Theistic Lord Kelvin was in his day? In point of fact, Jonas Salk was a Jew who believed in God but also believed evolution was real. He was, in fact, one who was willing to consider both the natural and supernatural in his search for truth. That he discovered great truths only supports rather than degrades my assertions.

Stay tuned for more about the New Dark Ages! (Hint, I am referring to the here and now!)

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

"the real struggle between science and the supernatural"

First, I wish to thank IAMB for providing the original quote from Richard Lewontin and you will find it below, italicized, and with my comments interspersed. I didn't believe my original quote was actually "quote mining" but lets have the whole thing and see.

Original Quote

"With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face.

I agree with that statement to a great extent, as it applies to complete laymen. Once you begin studying science you quickly discover that nothing is as it appears to be, so that the senses and the intellect do not agree. On the other hand, I find most scientific discoveries to be logically satisfactory and common sense most certainly goes hand-in-hand with logic.

Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. (emphasis mine)

Exactly! Lewontin is already in agreement with me even as he disagrees. "What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice." He believes that it is absurd to believe that an Ark survived a worldwide flood with the gene pool necessary to repopulate the world with walking and slithering creatures. I believe it is absurd to believe that life somehow formed from non-life, ever.

Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd.

Hmm, the logic meter tilts here. What's the difference, as expressed within the sentence? That dualities are probable and trinities are impossible? No substantiation is given so it is merely an opinion that is unsupported in any way, one of those catchphrases that materialists love, I suppose.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

Now this is a prejudiced point of view. Both creationists and naturalistic materialists make claims that are very difficult to accept on their face. That is the first problem I have with this sentence. Secondly, Lewontin co-opts the term "science" as belonging to the naturalistic materialist and therefore leaves those who accept the possibility of supernatural causes as outside of science. This would throw most of the fathers of science right out of the doors of the Scientific Hall of Fame. Francis Bacon, who came up with the scientific method used commonly today, would be out. Goodbye Newton and Kelvin and hundreds, nay, thousands of the giants of the past. Right here he has already revealed his worldview, but it is as if he cannot see it for himself. Lewontin's worldview not only keeps him from seeing other points of view as having validity, he cannot even see them as possibly being scientific! Is this not a form of blindness? Presuppositions!

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. (emphasis mine)

Thank you, Richard. You admit it, you just don't see it for what it is. Yes, you have a prior commitment to materialism. What you don't say is that scientists who are able to consider supernatural causes also must deal with apparent absurdities and possible just-so stories, for there is so much that is mystifying and wonderful about the Universe. But here is the question I would ask of Lewontin, "When did you give up the original quest? When did you quit seeking for truth and simply look for materialist solutions only? As a youth, in college, after you graduated? Or were your prejudices ingrained in you from the beginning?"

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Here the gaunlet is laid down, openly. Lewontin admits to looking for and accepting only materialist possibilities no matter what! How could it be any clearer that his presuppositions drive his conclusions, rather than a simple need to find the truth?

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

Is this the crushing logic by which creationists are to be tossed aside? If so, it is amazingly tortured. At the beginning of this quote we are asked to suspend disbelief and be willing to accept seeming absurdities if we are able to be serious scientists, and then at the end God is presented as an absurdity and for that reason, the supernatural must be avoided. What happened to the wonder at eating "tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them?"

No, it is not that God is absurd and that everything else is perfectly logical. Much of what is discovered by science seems to be absurd at first and yet when one is seeking truth, one keeps seeking until the answer, no matter how amazing, is found! This is what science truly is, the search for truth. No bounds should be placed on such a search. The natural has no right to exclude the supernatural when searching for the whys and wherefores of being! It is like sending archaelogists to Africa but denying them access to Egypt. Some of the best and most significant findings are walled off from the search!

When the entire quote is revealed, the obvious prejudices are also revealed. Richard Lewontin is admitting that he can only see materialistic solutions to any scientific problems, period. Worse yet, he claims all of science as belonging to naturalistic materialists only! He has neither the right nor the reason to do so other than from his own personal worldview.

Again I say, the scientist who is able to consider both natural and supernatural solutions to scientific problems is the better scientist, for he is able to come to the best conclusion unfettered by the prejudices of the naturalistic materialist. Let truth win out!

Saturday, January 13, 2007

The New Inquisition

I'll tie this article in with the discussion tomorrow...

The New Inquisition
By Gary DeMar
12/19/2006

The perception that there has always been a war between religion and science is of recent vintage. The myth finds its most formal statement in the nineteenth-century works of John William Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). White introduces his work with the claim that he is “letting the light of historical truth into the decaying mass of outworn thought which attaches the modern world to medieval conceptions of Christianity and which lingers among us—a most serious barrier to religion and morals, and a menace to the whole normal evolution of society.”1 The view of these two volumes is that when there have been proposals for a new scientific explanation on how the world works, Christians have been the first to condemn them because they conflict with some supposed scientific statement in the Bible and all religiously non-affiliated scientists are the first to accept them because science is “self-correcting”2 while so-called Christian science is not.

Draper makes the unsupported claim that scientific “opinions on every subject are continually liable to modification, from the irresistible advance of human knowledge.”3 This is hardly true given the nearly maniacal reluctance to allowing any scientific testing of the absolutist claims of modern-day evolutionary theory. “A new report from the U.S. House of Representatives has condemned officials at the Smithsonian Institution for imposing a religious test on scientists who work there. And it suggests their attacks on a scientist who just edited an article on intelligent design are just the tip of the iceberg of an industry-wide fear of anything that suggests man might not have come from a puddle of sludge.”4

In reality, many new scientific theories are often opposed by scientists for any number of reasons. There is continued scientific debate over the causes or even the reality of human-caused global warming, whether oil is a “fossil” fuel or a renewable abiotic resource,5 the medical benefits of embryonic stem-cells, and much more. These debates can be downright hostile as charges and counter charges are lobbed from scientific strongholds where the claim is made that there is no room for debate. Consider the Inquisition-like reaction to those who question the certainty of global warming:

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism [over global warming] have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. . . . In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.6

Some have gone so far as to propose that “global warming deniers” are aiding and abetting a global holocaust and should be prosecuted. Australian columnist Margo Kingston “has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial.’ ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial,’ she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming . . . Holocaust.’”7 These arguments are being made by those within the secular scientific community.

There’s a new Inquisition in operation. If you don’t hold to the agreed-upon theories, then you will not be hired, and if you already have a position, there is a good chance you will lose it if you express your opinion. “In November, 2005 . . . National Public Radio reported that it had talked with 18 university professors and scientists who subscribe to intelligent design. Most would not speak on the record for fear of losing their jobs. One untenured professor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia wrote that talking to NPR would be ‘the kiss of death.’ Another said, ‘There is no way I would reveal myself prior to obtaining tenure.’” Tolerance and an open mind are a one-way street when there might be an Inquisitor hiding in the shadows.


References

1. Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (New York: George Braziller, [1896] 1955), v–vi.

2. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Random House, 1996).

3. John William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1875), vi.

4. Bob Unruh, “ Congress slams Smithsonian’s anti-religious attacks: Report documents ‘invidious discrimination’ in campaign against Darwin dissenters” (December 16, 2006):
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53400. The 29-page report can be read at www.souder.house.gov/sitedirector/~files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf

5. Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith, Black Gold Stranglehold (Nashville, TN: WND Books, 2005).

6. Richard Lindsen, “Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence,” The Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2006)

7. Brendan O’Neill, “Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech” (October 6, 2006)

Gary DeMar is president of American Vision and the author of more than 20 books. His latest is Myths, Lies, and Half Truths.

Friday, January 12, 2007

Nancy Pelosi Values

Way to go, America. You voted for 'em, you own 'em!

Sing the Star-Spangled Banner in Nancy Pelosi country, get feloniously assaulted and then watch the police sit on their hands...Oh, the families of some of the attackers are rich, affluent, liberals? Therefore further investigation is required????

Nancy made sure that her new house can now raise your taxes with just a simple majority!

While she now has had 56 house hours to claim that 23 hours of her 100 have passed, one thing she did was exclude American Samoa from the minimum wage increase, thus benefitting big constituent Starkist. Speaker Pelosi was, of course, shocked - shocked, that scamming was going on here!
Not to be left out, Barbara Boxer quickly proves how idiotic she can be....


January 12, 2007 -- Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.

Boxer was wholly in character for her party - New York's own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic - but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Breathtaking.

Simply breathtaking.

We scarcely know where to begin.

The junior senator from California ap parently believes that an accom plished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

It's hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. (Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)

But put that aside.

The vapidity - the sheer mindlessness - of Sen. Boxer's assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.

In contrast to Boxer, Sen. Clinton seemed almost statesmanlike - until one considers that she was undercutting the president of the United States in time of war: "The president simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly by the American people, that we desperately need a new course."

Schumer, meanwhile, dismissed the president's speech as "a new surge without a new strategy."

Frankly, we're not surprised by Hillary Clinton's rush to judgment. With both eyes firmly set on 2008, her Iraq position flits like a tumbleweed in the political wind. Who knows where she'll wind up?

Heck, she admitted as much by citing November's midterm elections to justify her newfound opposition to the war. (And who needs a commander-in-chief who tailors war-fighting strategy to public opinion?)

Clinton would do well to consider the words of GOP Sen. John McCain, another White House hopeful, who frankly admits that his strong support for a troop surge in Iraq has cost him votes. (Some Democrats, in fact, already are calling this "McCain's surge.")

Said McCain: "I'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war."

As for Schumer, we're profoundly disappointed by his remarks.

While he's always been a fiercely parti san Democrat (nothing to be ash amed of), time was when Schumer seemed to understand the existential threat posed by Islamic extremism.

Now he's been elevated to a top position in his party's Senate leadership - and he has bigger fish to fry.

Like electing Democrats.

And so, like Boxer, he cheers on Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and John Edwards - with Clinton, presidential aspirants - as they trash Bush's plan.

To the extent that such behavior encourages America's enemies - and of course it does - he, like they, stands to have innocent blood on his hands.

Yes, the party's bloggers will be happy.

So will al Qaeda.

True enough, Democrats don't hold a monopoly on appalling behavior.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican presidential candidate and favorite of some conservatives, has joined with Democrats in opposition to the troop surge - and he's not alone.

The president deserves better.

Indeed, the least these critics can do is suggest an alternative that leads to success in Iraq rather than simply criticize.

Or suggest that America simply wave the white flag.

As Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said: "Now that the president has outlined a change in strategy, we should give his proposals an opportunity to work." Instead, Kyl rightly noted, "some declared the president's proposals unworkable even before they were announced."

No such nay-saying, however, was to be heard from two Capitol Hill stalwarts: McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut.

"I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq," said Lieberman, who alone in his party genuinely comprehends what a U.S. defeat in Iraq would mean.

As for McCain, his support is tempered by the fact that he argued correctly, from the start, that the war was being fought with too few troops. Had the administration listened four years ago, this tactical shift might not be necessary now.

It would take a truly hard heart not to be touched, deeply, by the sacrifices made by the young men and women now wearing their country's uniform.

And one can only imagine the pain felt by the families of those killed and cruelly wounded in service to America. Just as it was hard to imagine the agony of the loved ones left behind on 9/11.

But even to suggest that Condoleezza Rice is not fit to serve her country because she is childless is beyond bizarre.

It is perverse.

Sen. Boxer needs to apologize.

And she needs to do it today.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Looking at worldview, from the top

Professor Brooks of Syracuse University conducted a poll for his book, Who Really Cares? that found that “conservative households donate, on average, 30% more money to charities than do liberals (even though liberal households, on average, are wealthier than conservative households). Conservative families are more generous volunteering their time, and they are more likely to donate blood.“religious conservatives are 28 percentage points more likely to give than secular conservatives, give nearly four times more dollars per year, and volunteer more than twice as frequently.”

To translate: what you believe matters. Not just from a future standpoint (it matters where you will spend eternity), but also in the here and now. Ideas have consequences! And those people with a worldview that exalts humility and charity are more likely to demonstrate those qualities today.

"A worldview is a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously) about the basic makeup of our world.” James Sire

I wanted to explore the worldview of atheistic evolutionists and so I did a little research, beginning with one of the most famous, Charles Darwin:

(Two) militant atheists visited Darwin in 1881, one year before his death. Darwin at one point asked his guests, “Why do you call yourselves atheists, and say there is no God?” (One of them) explained that they did not say there was no God; rather, that because there was no evidence of deity, they were unable to believe in the idea of God and were therefore without God. Darwin agreed fully with their position, but chose a different word for it: “I am with you in thought, but I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist.” (From American Vision)

Darwin was certainly either an agnostic or an atheist. I will call upon the American Heritage Dictionary to define a few terms for us:

Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (Gr. Atheos - without God)

Agnostic - One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. (Gr. Agnotos - without knowledge)


Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism, that do not distinguish the supernatural (including strange entities like non-natural values, and universals as they are commonly conceived) from nature. Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.

Naturalist - One who believes in and follows the tenets of naturalism.

Plus - Materialism - Philosophy - The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

1. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.
2. A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.

Naturalistic Materialism - Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach said, “God is merely the outward projection of mankind's inward nature.” (1841 Essence of Christianity). Hegel/Marx/Engels/Kant and others took his thoughts and ran with them, pushing God out of the philosophical picture and bringing in man to take his place.

God disagrees

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

According to the naturalistic materialists, man is either basically good or basically a blank slate upon which good needs to be written. But God says that we are naturally sinners at heart and need the guidance of God and the standard of His Word to live a good and worthwhile life. Herein lies a fundamental difference between Christianity and Humanism.

Humanism: A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth. We'll see this term again in subsequent posts.

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually- fulfilled atheist." - Richard Dawkins, Darwinian apologist.

Yes, atheism needed evolutionary teaching to truly flourish. I would suggest that many atheists and agnostics believe that way because it serves to allow them to be immoral and many scientists who are evolutionists knowingly skew the data they find in their fields of endeavor to support evolution rather than creation or ID. Let them support my statement with their own words:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption ... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." - Aldous Huxley, philosopher, author, lecturer -(REPORT, June 1966. "Confession of Professed Atheist."}

"We [scientists] have … a prior commitment to materialism [and] we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations… Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” -Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

“[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” - Julian Huxley, British biologist.


Some scientists have come to believe in the existence of God because of their studies

Two years ago Anthony Flew, a noted anti-creationist, atheistic philosopher who had lectured and debated on the side of Darwinism for decades, made a stir in the scientific community with this statement: "It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together...It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." - Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.

I have, in fact, mentioned numbers of scientists who have said similar things. So why, then, does the scientific community seem to be dominated by naturalist materialists who believe in evolution and scoff at the notion of God? That is tomorrow's task...

Virginias trip continued...








The Alleghenies in the area of West Virginia in which we stayed are made of sedimentary rock. No matter where the cut is in one of these mountains, it reveals such rock and sometimes you can see hundreds or even a thousand feet of exposed layers at once. Pretty cool! The deer looked like he wanted answers but didn't know the questions. Anyway, my cute little wife modeled the latest in outerware at 3,000 feet and later we went much lower and clambered around on the rocks of a creek somewhere around Buckley.

The purpose of the visit, primarily, was to see my son. There is a picture of me and the cute little wife in front of the 24-mile bridge-and-tunnel across the mouth of Chesapeake Bay after we'd brought back a bunch of shells from the Atlantic shore. I guess you just can't see the bridge behind us, oh well! Then there is my son in front of his bomb, a 1992 Camaro, showing just how fast an Army Sergeant can grow facial hair in a 48 hour period off-duty! Behind his ride sits our good old Grand Voyager that ate up the miles with a vehicular smile. Nothing beats a van that can use cruise control going UP the mountain! But I think that Rob prefers his Camaro. I must mention that Rob defeated me in Lord of the Rings Trivial Pursuit one night.

It was great visiting with the Rob and checking out a few historical sites. It seems there was a massive building boom in Virginia in about 1670...I managed to have a couple of portions of great crab cake, which was absolutely essential for a trip to these environs and we got to take some time out with Rob, who is close to ending his Army stint and entering into the world of academics. He did show us an absolutely hilarious video of him and two compatriots teaching Afghani nationals how to deal with riot control situations that was made during the time he was in Kabul. Some of the thirtyish recruits looked to be closer to seventy and a couple of them would have made Gomer Pyle look quick on the draw. He also had some great pictures of some of the mountainous regions he'd explored while doing other duties in the East, mountains that made those we passed look like little hills.

Rob had a great deal of latitude with his group during training sessions and they made a lot of decisions on the run. One day they decided to avoid the area they had planned on utilizing and go elsewhere. On that day a major attack took place right where they were supposed to have been, killing several nationals and one U S troop who was there. But Rob had led his charges elsewhere and his commander was both surprised and pleased when they reported in later quite unscathed. God knows how we prayed for Rob's safety when he was there and also when he was running operations in the more dangerous Eastern part of Afghanistan. Very nice to have him in Virginia, as a desk sergeant for a local base and it will be even nicer when he arrives home in June! Hurrah!

The Virginias Trip in Pictures





Views from our mountain lodge in West Virginia...almost Heaven. If you look carefully you can see the river at the bottom of the valley of the third picture, which I took as the morning had almost entirely conquered the night. There is a midday picture and then the smoky look of the mountains to the West as it got a bit later.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Radaractive Part Two - Science and Supernatural

It's ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-ack!!!!!!!! After a long hiatus and vacation, the Radar is in the house...much to be done.

It's been a great century so far. My wonderful wife and I have been as far west as Hawaii, as far north as the middle of Alaska, as far south as Phoenix and as far east as the Eastern Shore (Atlantic Ocean) of Virginia. We've been up and down all sorts of hills and valleys and perused rock formations everywhere we've gone. Both of us are amateur geologists/scientists/historians and we tend to avoid the tourist shops and casinos and head out to the hills and streams when we travel.

This Christmas-New Years vacation schedule included a stay at a mountain lodge in West Virginia. There is a remarkable mountainside there that impressed me, easily over one thousand feet of exposed sedimentary rock layers, all relatively uniform! We identified lots of shale and coal along with standard limestone, mudstone and etc. It wasn't a terribly rich source of fossils, not for us anyway, sadly. Still, it was memorable to awaken early and watch the sun rise in the mountains.

We were about 3,000 feet above sea level at the lodge. I got up before the sun and perched at a balcony a few dozen feet above the ground to commune with God and watch dark turn to light.

A small herd of deer gathered below me, foraging watchfully, as the sun first touched the highest peaks. Like dogs, they would investigate when one of them would empty a bladder, making sure all was well I suppose. Once in a while one would wag a tail or nudge another animal. I counted eight of them in this group. They moved on into the woods as the light came on.

Two Ravens flew past on an unknowable mission. I spotted a Cardinal high in an fir tree. The light moved down the face of the mountains. The lodge stirred behind me as the first lodgers awoke to seek breakfast. Later the smaller birds appeared, like Bluebirds and Blue Jays and a Titmouse or two. More Cardinals showed up, too. There were Junkoes and Gold Finches. But many of them scattered when a few juvenile Homo Sapiens came out to tromp the woods in the immediate vicinity of the lodge. It took quite a while before the rays of light began to filter all the way down to the river valley far below, and by that time there had been a couple of Hawk sightings as well. I would later see a Bald Eagle but none appeared that particular morning.

I looked at the formation of the mountains, knowing that they went on for hundreds of miles. I considered the vast array of plants and animals that populate the region, the hundreds of layers of rock, the beauty and grandeur and functionality of it all. To my eyes, I was feasting upon wonders of God's Creation. A naturalistic materialist would be looking at a bunch of mistakes that had survived by chance and by being a bit more useful than the untold billions of other mistakes that had gone on before. I was looking at a world of beauty and purpose. The naturalistic materialist may see beauty, but no purpose there at all. What a shame!

For the last year, the debate has raged on in this blog primarily between creationists and evolutionists. This year I want to restart the conversation from a slightly different beginning point. I want to make a portion of my position very clear.

SCIENCE AND SUPERNATURAL TOGETHER

I will have so much more to say about this, but I wish to state emphatically that I believe that the supernatural has a place in science and to exclude it is to willfully turn a blind eye to very real possibilities concerning the origins of things and also the very operation of those things.

Our last discussion involved rapid speciation. As it happens, some of the arguments against the notion of a world-wide Noahic flood used by the evolutionist crowd deal with the wide variety of organisms found in the world today, not to mention the races of man and the languages thereof. However, no one has been able to refute the scientific studies done that show that rapid speciation occurs within populations, so rapid that one could well believe that all species of life found today could have been the descendants of the menagerie found on the Ark or of those organisms capable of surviving the ordeal outside the Ark.

This then causes commenters to object to the idea of the Ark itself, in that even though I can demonstrate that the size of the Ark and the design could not only hold enough animals and cargo but also survive a world-wide flood, the people on board could not care for such a cargo. They grumble that it would require some kind of supernatural intervention!

Supernatural Intervention

Of course! Absolutely. The Book of Genesis doesn't say if the animals were all juveniles, or whether they hibernated during the voyage, or whether Noah and his family were granted supernatural strength and energy to care for the animals and etc. This we really don't know because it is not specified. But the idea that God intervened in the process supernaturally is not a problem for creationists!!!

Make no mistake, I have presented evidence, and will continue to do so, that shows how very possible and plausible are the historical accounts found in Genesis. But I have never shied away from the proposal that supernatural forces are involved. Hey, did Jesus walk on water and heal the sick and raise the dead by supernatural means? Yes. Did God supernaturally part the Red Sea to let Moses and the Nation of Israel pass and then close it upon the chariots of Pharoah? No doubt. Did God create the Universe by supernatural means? Duh! Of course I believe that God has used supernatural powers to accomplish things during the history of all existence.

So I will admit to the world that the supernatural has and will be a part of life around us and therefore to exclude the supernatural from science is the act of a small child covering his eyes and thinking he has hidden himself. It is a foolish endeavor!

In truth, the world I see is far more logical than the world of the atheistic evolutionist. That there are literally millions of varieties of organisms is far more likely in a world created by God than a world in which all life evolved by chance from one exceedingly simple patriarchial organism. That all creatures would use the same design program (DNA) and that within that genetic code would be myriad options for sizes and shapes and colors and so on is far more likely to be by design. The billions upon billions of tons of sedimentary rock layers are far more likely to have been the result of a world-wide flood and the attendant runoff and glaciation periods than by a tormented series of local incidents somehow accomplishing worldwide results as postulated by evolutionists. Heck, did you know that the common design for an eyeball would have had to have evolved along several different bloodlines rather than one common ancestor? How ridiculous is that?

In any event, rapid speciation has been established. However, during the time of modern scientific study macroevolution has NOT been observed. So far, the variation in kind as designed by God is observable and evolution remains an unproven hypothesis. More to come!