Search This Blog

Friday, December 24, 2010

The night before Christmas...Evolution being the lump of coal

'Twas the night before Christmas and all through the world
in Northern climes flakes of a new snow were swirled
The Darwinist paradigm awoke with a shudder, more evidence for design?
Oh no, he would mutter.

The Children of God replied, hey, what's the matter
If Darwin is dead and served up on a platter?
The love of God is the better true story of
love and of giving and the Great God of Glory!

I in my gym shorts and my wife in her jammies
will laugh with our children and slice up the hammies
No stockings are hung for no chimney have we
But our love shines a light that all people can see
And I heard our God say as He bids us good night
Stay strong and courageous and fight the good fight!

stop it?


Will they ever learn?

It is a beautiful day.  We have 10-12 inches on the ground (snow) and more is falling as I write.   It is falling gently now, flakes coming almost straight down and delighting my dogs, who love to run in snow nearly as much as they enjoy splashing in muddy ponds and searching for voles and field mice on the abandoned college grounds where my wife occasionally takes them (armed with pepper spray and two large dogs, I do not fear for her safety there).

November, the dogs hunt where the ground is muddy and the grass and shrubs grow wild.  Now they run joyfully in the yard wearing their shock collars.   I suspect they have memorized their borders and would not require collars now, but we do not test that hypothesis as the current situation is favorable (tiny pun there).

Faith, being the Alaskan Husky, was quite happy to make a nest in the snow on the back porch last night and curl up surrounded by white...I should have captured that moment in a picture but I was busy at the time.   No doubt she could spend the night outside buried in a little snow nest if she needed to do so, but she came in later and, as usual, the dogs take turns sitting next to me at night when I grab laptop or book and turn on the television.  If my wife is watching with me they love to find a place to snuggle in, usually just one at a time (they are fairly big dogs) but on occasion both.  Since we are now officially on holiday, she is making some kind of art with her flour-clay concoction and I am blogging.

A picture of the dogs playing in snow at about four inches in depth, I am too lazy to get up and catch them playing outside right now.  It feels good to be able to do nothing and just enjoy.   Debbie has the latest Muse album cranked up on the Bose, and then we have three very good Christmas CDs to play.   On Christmas we are definitely watching A Christmas Story and It's A Wonderful Life!  We'll open a bottle of champagne and toast to the joy of being married to each other and in relationship with God.  We'll study a chapter of the Bible together.  The family is all coming over a little later, on Monday.   We'll sing a bunch of songs and share a Christmas Ham and all sorts of stuff and I will go off my diet for one meal.  Ah, family and friends and God, that is what Christmas is to me.  I won't even let that horrible DSW ad make me go Grinch!

Seriously? " Jingle Bells, your gift smells?"  I think that ad agency needs rebooting, heh heh...

Here in the Chicago area we are pleased when we have a white Christmas.   The recent global cooling trend has been completely resultant from the activity of the Sun and nothing else of significance.   Now, if a huge volcanic eruption should happen, THAT would be a global cooling event that would be bad for us all.   Actually more global warming would benefit mankind so if it actually happens that the Sun decides to become more active and warm things up I will sacrifice the white Christmas in exchange for lower grocery bills!

But until then, the snow is white and beautiful and not falling so hard that someone will have to take up a shovel right away.  We'll go to our Christmas Eve service at church and later on will have a big family celebration here at "The Villa", as a certain very large young man who goes by the name of "Smooth" once dubbed our house.   If you ignore the idea that Christmas is about buying lots of stuff and focus on loving God and family and friends it is a very happy time of year!   This year I have begun growing a beard for the first time since 2001.   I began growing it right after the last visit with daughters and grandkids so half the family does not know about it.   I am looking forward to the look on the faces of daughters, sons-in-law and grandkids upon seeing Grandpa with a beard!   Once it grows all the way out I might cut it off but the mix of blonde, brown and red has made way for mostly white so either it dies or I dye it...Right now it is two weeks old and pretty full, my hair still grows like weeds.  There is about a 5% chance I decide to die it and my hair white for Christmas before the family comes over?   Hmmm.

Meanwhile, the Carbon Exchange closed in the USA and the fad of anthropic global warming (AGW) is beginning to die a slow and dramatic, almost cartoonish death, stumbling over conferences and agencies and will finally fall along with the faked data and the hockey stick graph into the grave where Nebraska Man and the Piltdown man was laid.  The death rattle will be heard for awhile because econuts are quite sure polar bears are intent upon driving hybrid automobiles down to where the seals hang out and for the time being we are stuck with "green energy" as a nail to conveniently hang all sorts of stuff.  How about we just get energy of all kinds, oil, coal, natural gas, atomic energy, boron fusion, waste-to-fuel methodologies and drive the economy back up where it belongs?  

Funny thing about Global Warming Goofballs, they are like Darwinists in that EVERYTHING fits in.  Is it snowing?   It is because of AGW!   Is it hot?  Is it cold?  Is it peas porridge three days old?  Nonsense!

Snowfall “…a very rare and exciting event”

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
According to reports I’ve read, that is the Independent’s most viewed story of the past 10 years. It has become the modern equivalent of the famous “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus“.

Now, for the second year in a row, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales is covered with snow. Meanwhile, AGW proponents like George Monbiot are furiously spinning to make it look like AGW causes more snow, rather than less, as the CRU scientist said 10 years ago.
(Update) WUWT commenter Murray Grainger writes:
The very same Independent has already published the rebuttal:
Expect more extreme winters thanks to global warming, say scientists
It isn’t working. Give it up kids.

I was alerted in Tips and Notes to this image from by WUWT reader Joel Heinrich, but found an even better one from the Aqua satellite. See below.

Here is the image from the AQUA satellite, as you can see, except for a small part in the Southwest, snow is everywhere.
Click image to enlarge.

The image above has been cropped and annotated. Original source here

See last year’s image here

Thanks to Watt's Up With That!  With AGW looking ludicrous yet again, we move on.

Dan Phillip's excellent blogpost includes this cool cartoon...

and all sorts of other interesting stuff.  Here is his take on the Kentucky Observatory situation, yet another in a long list of censorships by the Darwinist Priesthood:

  • An eminently-qualified scientist is rejected as a candidate to run an observatory in Kentucky (in "the Bible Belt," ironically) for the sole crime of being "potentially evangelical." Pretty good job of reporting by The New York Times, though sadly their style-book still seemingly bars the expression "some scientists."
  • This is a manifestation of the Church of Darwin's vicious cycle, on which I've often commented. Evolution is true, because no scientists question it. Question evolution, and you are not a scientist, because no scientists question evolution. QED. However, the irony is that this man is an evolutionist. Is the real motivation peeking out from under its rock?
Dan's got a lot of content on his traditional Friday post.  

So you might want to go see...

Anyway, to quote again:  

"Evolution is true, because no scientists question it. Question evolution, and you are not a scientist, because no scientists question evolution. QED."

Many of my commenters probably have that thought branded on their brains.   Every major part of the original Darwinian hypothesis has been falsified.   Thousands upon thousands of scientists do question Darwinism and many of them are completely at odds with it.  Life does not come from non-life.  The rock layers are not the slow buildup of millions of years, they are the result of catastrophic events.   There is no eternal Universe, it had a beginning and it will have an end.  Life is not simple, it is more complex than we know (because we keep finding out more about it) so the odds against any organism evolving from scratch are so fantastically impossible that statisticians have quit trying to figure it out.  There is no naturalistic materialistic source of information.

To counter this, Darwinists have gone off the deep end.  Some hypothesize that there are infinite Universes all in existence at the same time so that this one Universe is the lucky one that supports life.  That is about as likely as the flying spaghetti monster.  They make up all these ridiculous stories that generally have these components:

Organisms "adapt."  The way this is presented in science is as if organisms are given a math problem to solve or asked to give an extemporaneous speech.   Organisms do not decide to convert arms to wings or legs to fins or skin to shells or fins to feet!   We do not see this happening today.

Organisms "evolve."  Well, we have no evidence of this.   We have lots of preserved fossil evidence that includes organisms that are still around today, organisms that are extinct and organisms that appear to be a similar kind to those around today but have some significant differences.  The fossil evidence is unusual in that when something dies, it is scavenged and munched and eventually completely absorbed by the ecosystem with scavenging animals and organisms and the deterioration of time and etc.   We don't find hundreds of opossum fossils a foot below the side of the road!   The fossil rocks are best explained as the evidence left behind by a huge flood that wiped out all land vertebrates not preserved in Noah's Ark.   All we see today is speciation and it is a result of a brilliantly designed DNA/RNA coding system, God's software and hardware working to preserve the kind.

Natural Selection.   First proposed in modern terms by the creationist Blyth, he described the means by which organisms preserved their kind by having choices within their kind for different features so that they could adjust to climate and other things and continue to exist.   We now know that speciation is the result of ecological and other pressures that select from a vast array of pre-existing information within each gene pool.  We even know that meta-information exists in the cell, the the mother cell provides the framework for the child, that pre-existing switches fast-forward certain traits when presented with variables that include mutation and that the DNA/RNA coding system has yet to be completely understood by mankind.   "Junk" DNA has turned out to be another mistaken Darwinist supposition, all parts of the DNA string have responsibilities.

Darwinists give mutations the creative power here.   Mistakes are creative power?   Not in the real world!

Every time a scientist uncovers "evolution in action" it turns out to be another mistake or hoax.  Scientists have given up on the fruit fly after hundreds of generations of attempts to force it to evolve.   They continue to coax and torment and hound various bacteria and occasionally uncover a "new" feature which turns out to be a loss of information and involves an organism that would be displaced by heartier fellows in the wild.   

The last "mistake-hoax" from NASA's "Astrobiology" department (do they have a Fairy Godmother department?) was that of the "arsenic bacteria" which once again proved to be a huge overstatement.  Yes, bacteria that can withstand a high level of arsenic had the ability to live primarily on arsenic for a short time, but never did arsenic "replace" the major building blocks of life and, when returned to a natural environment, this version of the bacteria was replaced by the normal version right away.  

Science was built on the back of Christianity.   The Greek train of thought that was axiomatic had dominated science until pioneers like Roger Bacon and Sir Francis Bacon introduced and popularized the scientific method.   Methodological investigation is at the heart of the scientific method.

Religion in the form of Secular Humanism/Atheism/Darwinism has co-opted and kidnapped the scientific method that worked beautifully well for scientists before the Darwinism High Priesthood forced "methodological naturalism" into the mix.   This is of course a metaphysical statement that has been injected into what was pure scientific study.   The results have been ruinous!

Ideas have consequences.   When Darwinism became accepted, it moved smoothly into the world of philosophical creeds and Social Darwinism has slaughtered hundreds of millions of people and continues to do so to this day.   

I recommend reading this overview of The World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K.  It is a long and interesting read.   It defies an easy summary.   Most of the great scientists of the past believed in a Creator God and in fact this belief is the backbone of scientific study.   Introduction is here.

Here is a tiny excerpt:

"From 1 to 1000 A.D.

The First Millennium was a turbulent age.  It is difficult for science to flourish without some political and economic stability.  During the first 1000 years after Christ, the world saw a decaying Roman Empire split into two, and eventually sacked by barbaric tribes.  For the first three and a half centuries, Christians were a despised and persecuted group, tortured by waves of intense persecution, seeking to keep alive the light of Christ’s message of salvation while huddled in dark catacombs and other secret places of worship.  When Constantine finally ended the persecution in 313 A.D. and made Christianity the state religion, Christians suffered an even worse threat: the corruption of their core beliefs.  It become increasingly common for pastors and teachers to compromise the integrity of Christian doctrine through political ambition and personal greed.  Christendom slowly became an unhealthy mix of Christian and pagan traditions.  The Eastern church fell to the Muslims, while the Western church became, by the middle ages, a ruthless political power, exercising its domination over governments and peasants alike, often with utter disregard for the simplicity of the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, while the populace became more ignorant of the Scriptures, church leaders grew increasingly fond of Greek philosophy.  Individual curiosity about the world and its workings were suppressed on two fronts: the necessity to subsist, and the fear of transgressing official church dogma.  There was one institution that kept the flame of Scriptural truth from flickering out: the monasteries.

The Medieval Philosophers

In a staunchly Catholic culture, monastic philosophers were understandably products of their time.  In the monasteries the Scriptures were copied with great care.  Some monks had time for scholarly pursuits and were able to learn Greek and Hebrew, and thereby read Biblical manuscripts in the original language.  Irish Christians in particular, after the missionary efforts of Patrick in the 5th century, preserved some of the most important texts from classical literature.  The Emperor Charlemagne, a brilliant military strategist, brought about the most successful of several attempts to revive the glory of Rome.  His series of military victories brought most of the nations of Europe under his control by 800, when he was crowned Emperor with the Pope’s blessing.  More than just a king, Charlemagne instituted policies that unified the warring tribes and brought civilization to a continent long plagued by barbarian raids.  Charlemagne had the foresight to understand that an empire needed a common identity.  As Emperor he issued generous laws that respected basic rights, ruled wisely through effective emissaries, and made Latin the lingua franca throughout this new Holy Roman Empire.  His measures were incalculable in stabilizing and civilizing the West.

One of Charlemagne’s most enduring contributions was his edict of 787 that ordered every cathedral and monastery to open a public school.  These abbey schools, intended for poor and rich alike, elevated literacy throughout the empire.  Charlemagne hired Alcuen of York, a scholar of distinction, to implement his educational reforms.  Borrowing from old Roman institutions, Alcuen established the Trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and logic) as the core curriculum; later the Quadrivium was added (arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy).  In a society where the Church was supreme, every aspect of life had a spiritual purpose, including learning.  Most scholars and educators throughout the Middle Ages saw no dichotomy between learning and faith.  Learning law, literature, languages, trades and arts were all viewed in the context of spiritual improvement; there was no division between secular and sacred.  Scholars were naturally interested in classical literature, but Christianized it, accepting what they viewed as congruent with Scripture, rejecting what was clearly pagan.  In the three centuries following Charlemagne, a growing populace led to more urbanization, more division of labor, more leisure time and more interest in scholarly pursuits.  By the late 11th century, there was enough stability for more and more educated people to dwell on natural philosophical questions.  Though slow in coming, the school movement gave rise to a unique institution of Christian Latin Europe: the university.

The first universities began as loosely-organized student guilds.  They gradually developed into centers for scholarly learning and self-improvement.  Understandably, the ideas were permeated with Catholic theology and tradition, but to the extent one was learned in the Scriptures, he could revitalize the core Biblical assumptions.  A new impetus appeared when Islamic philosophers re-introduced the teachings of Aristotle to the West in the 12th century.  Early caliphs had embarked on a remarkable translation program in the 8th century, gathering and translating Greek texts into Arabic.  The West had comparatively few texts, primarily Plato’s Timmaeus, and no Aristotle.  Adding to their Greek learning, Islamic scholars such as Avicenna and Averroes demonstrated remarkable skill in mathematics, medicine, chemistry (primarily alchemy) and astronomy (primarily astrology).  Their successes attracted the keen interest of Latin scholars.  As Islamic science began to decline in the 12th century, the Latin West awakened and borrowed heavily from Arabic copies of classical texts, some of it from nearby Moorish Spain.  Another translation movement flourished as Western scholars translated the Arabic documents into Latin and studied them eagerly.

With these new classical texts at hand, Medieval philosophers were forced to confront big questions about the compatibility of Greek and Biblical thought.  Contrary to popular opinion, medieval scholars did not swallow Greek philosophy whole, nor was there a consensus view about the relationship of classical learning to Christian theology.  Although Greek and Arabic ideas were unquestionably influential in Christian Europe, the universities had developed a disputative style of pedagogy that demanded critical analysis of all propositions.  Many valued Aristotle or Plato or Ptolemy for the elegance of their systems but brought these systems under the scrutiny of their Catholic doctrines.  Additionally, there was a wide spectrum of opinion about the validity of knowledge from pagan sources.  As we shall see, some medieval Catholic scholars, and especially later Protestant thinkers, led the skeptical disputation about Aristotle that contributed to the rise of empiricism – the understanding of the natural world through observation and experiment.  Their motivation was not only negative (reaction to Aristotle), however, but positive: the belief that nature was the creation of a transcendent, good, wise, rational God."


Early great minds like Hugh of Victor,  William of Ockam, Nicholas of Oresme and Roger Bacon were foundational in establishing real scientific thought.  From such men, Sir Francis Bacon took the ideas and principles that helped him formulate the true scientific method, empiricism, which does not impose naturalism but rather tests and observes it with no fetters from religion or philosophy to stand in the way of inquiry.   From there on the greats moved the ball of human knowledge farther and farther down the field.  Let me simply present one of these foundational great thinkers:

Robert Grosseteste     c. 1168 - 1253.
The next entrant is extremely important to the development of modern science, yet sure to be almost unknown to most readers.  This medieval pastor, however, exemplifies the theme of our series, that it was Christian beliefs that motivated science, and it was great Christians who started the scientific revolution.

When studying any historical biography, we have to understand the tenor of the times.  The conditions in medieval Europe, totally dominated by the Catholic church, often corrupted by its own power, were often far from Christlike.  We would hasten to distance ourselves from the abuses that were all too pervasive: bloody Crusades, immoral popes, dogma and human tradition exalted above Scripture.  As mentioned in the Introduction, however, many of the abuses were done by the rulers, not the monks, pastors, and common people, except to the extent they believed and obeyed false doctrines.  Those nearest to the teachings of Jesus were the monks and pastors who knew the ancient languages, copied the Scriptures and had dedicated their lives to the gospel as they understood it (this can be illustrated by the fact that Jon Hus, Martin Luther and other later reformers often came from the ranks of monks).  Corrupted as church doctrine had become with works and extra-biblical traditions, there still remained a Christian outlook on the world of nature, though compromised at times by Greek philosophy (particularly of Aristotle).  It was the Christian worldview, in contrast to the mythologies of pagan empires, that was to be the seedbed of the scientific revolution.  (See our section on worldviews in the Introduction).

Robert Grosseteste was a seminal figure in the history of science; some have even characterized him as an early practitioner of the scientific method.  Although a theologian and bishop by profession, he took great interest in the natural world.  What drove this interest?  That is the question we want to explore.  Certainly most of his attention was devoted to the pastorate and the training of pastors, of which the Grosseteste website says, “During his eighteen years as a bishop, Grosseteste became known as a brilliant, but highly demanding, church leader.  He insisted that all his clergy be literate and receive some training in theology.” His insistence on high moral and intellectual standards even led him, on several occasions, to rebuke the church leadership.  He did not hesitate to lecture the pope on practices he felt were intolerable and unscriptural, such as corruption and political favoritism.  The InfoPlease online encyclopedia says, “Some historians see in Grosseteste’s protests against Rome an influence upon Wyclif and a foreshadowing of the Reformation.”  In particular, out of outrage for the corruption with which papal appointees were collecting church revenues, he resisted Pope Innocent IV to his face.  The portrayal of Grosseteste as a proto-Protestant is probably a beyond what history warrants, but even the Catholic Encyclopedia, which argues he never doubted the authority of the pope, admits:

What he did maintain was that the power of the Holy See was “for edification and not for destruction”, that the commands of the pope could never transgress the limits laid down by the law of God, and that it was his duty, as bishop, to resist an order that was “for manifest destruction”.  In such a case “out of filial reverence and obedience I disobey, resist, and rebel.” [a quote from a letter to the pope’s secretary.]

This admission is telling.  Papist or not, it shows that Robert Grosseteste had a high regard for Scripture and was a man of integrity and moral courage.  In fact, he strongly and sternly argued into his old age about the abuses of the Curia which amounted to extortion and political favoritism.  Such righteous indignation was dangerous in those days, but Grosseteste was held in such high regard, even the Pope respected his reproofs: in his mid-seventies, Grosseteste “read out in the presence of the pope an impressive recital of the evils of the time and a protest against the abuses of the Curia, ‘the cause and origin of all this.’ ; Innocent listened without interruption....” (Catholic Encyclopedia). He even resisted a nepotistic appointment by the pope under threat of excommunication, but was later vindicated.

In addition, Grosseteste steadfastly fought political corruption in his diocese and attempts to weaken the mandates of the Magna Carta.  It is easy to see in Robert Grosseteste an example of courage and integrity that set an example for later reformers who, either within or eventually outside the church, could not bear to see the purity of Scriptural teaching corrupted by personal greed.  With this background of his virtuous character, let us now turn to the subject of what made him a pivotal individual in the history of science.

Grosseteste’s love of learning was the equal of his intolerance for evil.  Though born in a poor family, he became one of the most learned men of the Middle Ages, mastering Greek and Hebrew.  He contributed influential translations of the writings of church fathers and Greek philosophers to the corpus of medieval literature.  He became Bishop of Lincoln, which included Oxford, of which he was head for a time.  He was closely associated with the young university, from which he may have graduated as a youth.  A lifelong lover of knowledge, Grosseteste both absorbed and influenced the best scholarship of the early 13th century.  The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

It is not easy to define exactly Grosseteste’s position in the history of thirteenth century thought.  Though he was from many points of view a schoolman [i.e., scholastic philosopher], his interests lay rather in moral questions than in logical or metaphysical.  In his lectures he laid more stress on the study of the Scripture than on intellectual speculation.  His real originality lay in his effort to get at the original authorities, and in his insistence on experiment in science.  It was this which drew from Roger Bacon [one of his students] the many expressions of enthusiastic admiration which are to be found in his [Bacon’s] works.  In the “Opus Tertium” he says: “No one really knew the sciences, except the Lord Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, by reason of his length of life and experience, as well as of his studiousness and zeal.  He knew mathematics and perspective, and there was nothing which he was unable to know, and at the same time he was sufficiently acquainted with languages to be able to understand the saints and the philosophers and the wise men of antiquity.”

This brings us to the scientific side of this amazing individual.  The encyclopedia goes on to describe the tremendous breadth of his knowledge and interest, from liberal arts to music to husbandry to finance to classical literature: “Besides being learned in the liberal arts, Grosseteste had an unusual interest in mathematical and scientific questions.  He wrote a commentary on the ‘Physics’ of Aristotle; and his own scientific works included studies in meteorology, light, colour and optics.  Amongst his mathematical works was a criticism of the Julian calendar, in which he pointed out the necessity for the changes introduced in the Gregorian.  He attempted a classification of the various forms of knowledge; and few indeed, among his contemporaries, can have had a more encyclopedic range.”  Why would a bishop be interested in science?  The Grosseteste website explains,

During his lifetime, Grosseteste was an avid participant in European intellectual life.  His early education had given him a taste for natural philosophy.  He began producing texts on the liberal arts, and mainly on astronomy and cosmology.  His most famous scientific text, De luce (Concerning Light), argued that light was the basis of all matter, and his account of creation devotes a great deal of space to the biblical text of God’s command, ‘Let there be light.’  Light also played a significant role his [sic] epistemology, as he followed the teachings of St. Augustine that the human intellect comes to know truth through illumination by divine light.  Grosseteste’s interest in the natural world was further developed by his study of geometry, and he is one of the first western thinkers to argue that natural phenomenon [sic] can be described mathematically.

Notice how Genesis gave him the inspiration to pursue a mathematical analysis of light.  Robert Grosseteste is a prime example of how a Biblical worldview stimulated science.  In more than one case, an actual Bible verse was the stimulus.  This counters the criticism of naturalistic scientists that presume scientific research comes to a halt when the answer is “God did it.”  On the contrary, the question How did God do it? often spurred great thinkers to uncover the laws that they believed the great Lawgiver had designed.

Grosseteste is memorable not only for his own scientific pursuits, but also for the fact that he was mentor to Roger Bacon, who caught the spark and envisioned even greater possibilities for the experimental method.  Be sure to continue our study on the life of Roger Bacon.

While in hindsight we might not endorse everything Robert Grosseteste believed and taught (such as papal supremacy and other extra-biblical doctrines), he exemplified a Christian attitude toward the natural world that almost ignited a scientific revolution hundreds of years before Galileo and Newton.  On top of that, he had a tremendous love of the truth, high standards of integrity, an exceptional inquisitiveness into nature, and a huge measure of godliness and compassion that alone would make his life worth noting.  Dan Graves says of him, “Devoted pastor, dedicated church reformer, groundbreaking scientist, renowned educator, careful historian, and meticulous translator–in each field, Robert Grosseteste raised the standard for God-fearing academics to follow for generations” (Scientists of Faith, p. 23).


The true scientific method was born in the minds of believers.   Knowing that the Universe was made intentionally by a Sound Mind, a Creator, they believed the laws and forces of nature could be understood and explained and used to improve the lot of mankind.   They resisted the magical thinking of Pagans and superstitious nonsense, expecting to encounter a world which could be tested and explored.   They are the ones who believed almost any force could be converted to formulas.   They are the ones who proposed that a hypothesis not be accepted by reason alone, but rather be tested and tested and tested again with repeatable results before acceptance.   This was an idea that the Church resisted and the rulers resisted and many of the pagan scientists resisted but it has now become accepted by scientists worldwide.   Unfortunately, Darwinists insert their religion into the formula, thereby artificially preventing mankind from making logical deductions and conclusions.

A Creationist scientist expects to find a logical world that man can comprehend and use to his advantage.   He would also expect there would be limits to human understanding.  Science has come to the boundary area between man's ability to understand and God's foundational sustenance.   Quantum Mechanics is both widely accepted and completely puzzling because when we come to the boundary between the natural and supernatural the Hand of God becomes apparent.   How do subatomic particles "know" they are being observed?   How can they seem to instantaneously move from one location to another seemingly in violation of Relativity?   How can particle/wave characteristics of light be understood?  I am not saying we should quit studying, I am saying a real scientist should see that we now observe things that are nonsensical unless the Universe is being sustained by the Creator.

If you are a Darwinist, go all the way.   There is nothing but naturalism.   There is no "artificial" as we are all products of random chance and therefore cannot be intentional.  There is no free will, you do what you have evolved to do for the furtherance of your kind.   The Holocaust was simply evolution in action.  You deny that there is an intelligent design seen in the world?  You deny an Intelligent Designer?  Then how can you ascribe intelligence to yourself?  If you are the result of random actions then you are the prisoner of your evolvement and can do nothing more or less than you are evolved to do.   You have no more right to claim intelligence if you deny it was input into nature, you cannot claim to design if you deny the design of nature, you cannot claim to understand information if you deny the definition of information.   You must believe all things are just part of the inexorable evolving random chance occurrences that formed the Universe and you as well.  In fact you must be helpless to change your mind if your mind is the product of random chance rather than a God-given gift.  I have nothing but pity for your condition.   Darwinism has no absolutes, no moral code, no foundation upon which to rest.   Darwinists borrow various things from God such as reason and math and creativity and then deny the Source of it all. 

I say that there is a difference between man and animals.  God made man to have an eternal spirit and an intellect that can think abstract thoughts and be creative.   We marvel at the Brush Turkey and the uncanny ability to build a nest that makes Darwinist thought seem silly.   But we also note that said Brush Turkey does not make mounds as art.   A nautilus may be a beautiful and awesome creature in appearance but it does not make drawings on the sand.   While both whales and bacteria can communicate, we cannot perceive the abstract in what they "say."   Dogs can be trained, lots of animals have the ability to learn and God made them that way to be of use to mankind.  But you will not find a dog scratching out math problems in the grass.  

So for me to discuss isotopes with Woolf seems such a waste of time, like talking with my granddaughter about her imaginary friend's hair color.  My granddaughter's imaginary friend is not real, it is her imagination at work and is typical of a small child.    Woolf is a grown man, so to discuss such things with him seems pointless.   How do you argue about the color of the roofing when you have not yet laid the foundation for the house?   Lay the foundation and then we will discuss the roofing tiles.  My easy answer is that God made things good at the beginning and some things have been damaged by sin and others changed or destroyed by the Flood, so that without allowing the Bible a seat at the table of discussion as the most dependable history reference available, men are easily led astray.  When the time comes, RATE conference discussions and abstracts on isotopes will be available for download and sharing.
Since the basis for Darwinism is preposterous and completely impossible on so many levels, a man's problem with how God made things is his own, it is for him to wrestle with God and not with me.   Since Jon Woolf and other commenters cannot answer my fundamental questions of where the Universe came from, where life came from and where information comes from while I have those answers, I will not make haste to major in the minors just because they wish me to do so.   I think the task at hand is to reveal to the world that God created and that Creationism is not only scientific, it is far more scientific than the magical thinking of Darwinism.  Nevertheless I do appreciate the fact that Jon Woolf is confident in his thinking, enough to identify himself, which is more than most commenters are willing to do.  If any of you think I dislike Jon Woolf, you are mistaken.   I would prefer to be able to cause him to think and revisit his foundational beliefs.  It was possible to convert me, a sinner who was intent on sinning to the best of his ability, into a follower of God.   It remains possible that God will become real to a man like Jon Woolf.   God loves Jon just as much as He loves me.  God has no respect of persons, he will reach out to scientist and beggar and teacher and child and politician and carpenter and salesman and athlete alike.

If the world of science was a poker game, Creationism has already laid the cards on the table and has been waiting for Darwinists to show theirs.   Creationism presents three aces and two kings.  Darwinists have for years claimed they have a winning hand but if you look over their shoulders they have five random cards that do not fit together.   If they show their hand, they lose, so they keep it close and claim victory by acclamation!

They have a whining hand!   Is Eugenie Scott anything more than a frustrated censor of ideas?   That cannot be particularly fulfilling to the soul.  Imagine being part of the Darwinist Inquisition, seeking out those dangerous Christians and Creationists and Intelligent Designers because they have IDEAS and ideas that are not JUST LIKE OUR IDEAS are very dangerous.   Very dangerous, indeed.  Trouble is, the truth always gets out.   Kings and Popes and Tyrants of the past have sought to control speech and ideas in order to rule.  Why should science allow for a Ruling Paradigm?  How can it be that so many otherwise intelligent people have been so duped into thinking that some areas of investigation must be taboo?   

In warfare, one looks for the areas that are well-enforced OR well-disguised as the places the enemy values the most.   This matter of design and life and information in the cell is the area that Darwinists have camouflaged and placed great batteries of guns all around to prevent inspection by the interested student of things.   Verboten!  No Creationism Allowed!  No Intelligence Allowed!  No God Allowed!  No looking behind the curtain...

Reader?  Do yourself a favor.  Look at the cards on both sides.   Don't let Richard Dawkins fool you.   The evidence for Darwinism is not overwhelming, it is entirely lacking.    It is all stories and no proofs.   There is no more science to a Darwinist scenario than there is to a reader of crystal balls.   It really is the "Emperor's New Clothes."   Nothing to it but hot air.  I will remain faithful to my mission, which is not just one mission, but this blog is devoted primarily to freeing captive minds from Darwinist Dogmatic Thought Prisons and setting them free to observe and analyze actual evidence.  

If this is the last time you read my blog this year, Merry Christmas!


Jon Woolf said...

"Since Jon Woolf and other commenters cannot answer my fundamental questions of where the Universe came from, where life came from and where information comes from while I have those answers,"

Telling lies on Christmas Day? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Anonymous said...

Lying for Jesus knows no season, and unfortunately Radar knows no shame, wasting his time with propaganda even on Christmas day.

Merry Christmas, Radar, and may you have a happy and successful new year. Hopefully you will find the time and capacity for quiet reflection and Christian values, not least forgiving your perceived "enemies".

radar said...

Since we all know I am not lying, then it is I who must forgive you for your false accusations. But I recognize them as the refuge of one who does not have the answers so it does not offend. When anyone can give me a Darwinist solution to the problem of existence, life and information then it will be the first time it has been done. Until then my statement stand as true.

Merry Christmas to all of you! I shall certainly enjoy the season. You will note that much of my "propaganda" is coming from people with doctorates and post-doctoral degrees and awards? There are brilliant minds on both sides, which means that the science is not the issue, but rather the point of view.

Anonymous said...

"Since Jon Woolf and other commenters cannot answer my fundamental questions of where the Universe came from, where life came from and where information comes from while I have those answers,"

Can we take it you don't mean scientific answers? What you're saying is that your creation myth explains creation, which is a tautology and uninteresting from a scientific perspective.

Your lies are documented and easily demonstrated. For example, the scientific method wasn't ruined by methodological naturalism, but the two go hand in hand and are practically synonymous.

radar said...

"Your lies are documented and easily demonstrated. For example, the scientific method wasn't ruined by methodological naturalism, but the two go hand in hand and are practically synonymous."

I have documented the history of the scientific method. You are either ignorant of the history of science, a liar, or intellectually unable to grasp the concept of methodological investigation. If you are ignorant, put some time in to study history and learn the truth.

If you cannot do this, I am sorry for your lack of ability to comprehend or accept documented fact. This history of the development of the scientific method is true and I stand by it. Naturalism was NOT part of the study of science and would be rejected out of hand by most great scientists of the last 600 years and a great many of them today. To say otherwise is simply religious propaganda and I have within my posts already proven this point.

Will you remove the memory of the Bacons, Newton, Maxwell, Kelvin and other greats of science and deny their accomplishments because it doesn't fit your worldview? Then you, sir, are no scientist and unfit for teaching others!

Anonymous said...

I see Radar still equates methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism while calling others ignorant. The irony is sublime.

Jon Woolf said...

Since we all know I am not lying, ...

Alas, another beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly little fact. Those of us who read the scientific literature instead of cursing it know that science has long since explained the origin of genetic information, and is making steady progress on figuring out the origin of life.

You will note that much of my "propaganda" is coming from people with [phony or irrelevant] doctorates and post-doctoral degrees and awards?

Fixed that for you.

Naturalism was NOT part of the study of science...

Naturalism has always been part of the study of science, going back more than five thousand years to the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. It's true that Newton, Halley, Maxwell, etc., might not have used the name "methodological naturalism" for what they were doing, but they certainly held to the naturalistic assumption in their science.

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed."

"Blessed are those who find wisdom, those who gain understanding..."

"She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her;
those who hold her fast will be blessed."

Why do you continue to lurk in the darkness of fear and superstition, Radar? Why won't you even risk dealing fairly with your opponents' arguments? Are you truly so afraid of exposure to the light of Knowledge?

Anonymous said...

"Why won't you even risk dealing fairly with your opponents' arguments?"

It is ironic that Radar, with his constant claims that "Darwinists" avoid debate, so consistently avoids an actual discussion on his own blog.

Anonymous said...

Can we take it you don't mean scientific answers? What you're saying is that your creation myth explains creation, which is a tautology and uninteresting from a scientific perspective.

I don't blame Radar for shying away from this one: of course he doesn't mean scientific answers.

Key misunderstanding for creationists: they think their religious "answer" measures up to a scientific answer. They seem to have no genuine understanding of where what they're proposing falls short.