Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

God, Nature and Homosexuality

In the view of evolutionists and extreme environmentalists, there is nothing special about humans. We all evolved from a common ancestor but took different branches, and have the arrogance to think we're the most highly evolved creatures. Of course, there are huge differences between humanity and animals when it comes to culture, morality, intelligence and so on. Biblical creationists know that we are special, created in God's image and he has a purpose for each one of us. Those of us who believe the Bible know that homosexual behavior goes against what God commands. This is problematic in the emotionally-based "thinking" of political movements.


One objection to homosexuality was, "It's against the law of nature". Is it? There are people who try to use the exception to negate the bigger principle. For example, the word translated "day" in Genesis, יוֹם (yom), can be translated to mean an indefinite period of time when the context does not have a number, evening, morning or other qualifiers. For them, it means that they can add to God's written Word and shove in billions of years — they used an exception to ignore the rules. Similarly, some poorly-thinking people will say that because some species of animals practice forms of homosexual behavior, then it must be all right for people, too. There are serious problems with that kind of emotion-based reasoning.
The University of Oslo’s Natural Museum of History, in Norway, has opened a new exhibit called ‘Against Nature?’ The museum exhibit is aimed at providing scientific justification for homosexuality in both the animal world and humanity. Geir Soli, project leader, stated ‘The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the “laws of nature” can now be rejected scientifically.’ It certainly sounds scientific, but what’s the real story?
To find out the real story (hint: the museum is politically motivated), click on "Homosexual Animals — Using ‘Science’ to Push a Political Agenda".

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

"Scientists Say" — That's Enough? Not Hardly!


Many times, people will appeal to the authority of scientists have said, often without bothering to find out which scientists said what things, when, and where. This fits in with the worship of Scientism, where scientists are the high priests of knowledge and wisdom. Many people think that scientists are dispassionate to the point of being automatons, collecting evidence and following where the evidence leads.

That is the opposite of the truth. Scientists have biases and presuppositions. Some of us disagree with the consensus, and are considered "misinformed". Some of us would rather follow the truth than follow the intellectually lazy crowd, even though our "marginal views" are considered unworthy of respect.
Many Americans are convinced that mainstream narratives are true—like humans descended from ape-like ancestors or that burning fossil fuels causes global warming. But many times large contingents totally disagree with these popular ideas. How can equally intelligent and educated people arrive at such opposing conclusions? Conventional thinkers often assume that those who diverge from mainstream narratives simply need more science education. However, a new study shows why some other factor must be to blame.
To finish reading the article, click on "Do We Always Believe What Scientists Say?".


Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Darwinian Fail Domino Effect


Some people knew that Darwin's evolutionary ideas were faulty from the beginning. Others abandoned them for neo-Darwinism later on. A few of the concepts are still around, but today's evolutionary speculations have almost no resemblance to the stuff that Darwin put forth.

Charles Robert Darwin did not think of evolution all by himself. No, it is actually an ancient pagan religion that had been adjusted and toyed with for a long time. (In fact, Alfred Russel Wallace almost wrote it first.) Chuck took ideas from Erasmus Darwin, Charles Lyell, James Hutton Herbert Spencer, Thomas Robert Malthus and others. Darwin's Drones insist that evolution is a fact, a law, and practically an irresistible force of nature that effects everything.

morgueFile / summer visit to Columbia Bottoms / jdurham
The ideas of Malthus about competition for survival had a tremendous impact, and was one of Darwin's themes. Some evolutionary scientists are seeing the dominoes falling, however. Algae is not so competitive. If competition in nature is not so true after all, then social Darwinism and vicious competition in human society is also out of place — as biblical Christians knew all along. No, the good competition of free market enterprise is healthy.
There’s no evidence for a key presumption of Darwinian theory – the very presumption that gave birth to Social Darwinism.

It’s rare to see a science article say “Darwin was wrong,” but Live Science reluctantly admitted that a key idea Darwin proposed in The Origin in 1859 is the opposite of the way nature actually works.

One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.
To finish reading and learn about where the dominoes fall, click on "Malthus Misled Darwin Who Misled the World".


Wednesday, July 09, 2014

Telling an Evolutionary Whale Tale


The whale is often cited as one of the best examples of evolution. But is the evidence actually there, or is it simply more wishful thinking on the part of Darwin's Cheerleaders? In reality, there is more fancy than fact.
One such evolutionary claim that has been around since the days of Darwin asserts that whales (which are mammals, not fish or reptiles) descended from some four-footed land mammal. Darwin thought that it was a bear-like animal that evolved into whales, but today evolutionists disagree. Some speculate that hoofed animals (like cattle) or wolf-like carnivores were the ancestors of whales. Others insist that DNA evidence indicates that the ancestors were hippopotamus-like. More recently, evolutionists claimed deer-like, raccoon-size animals had evolved into whales.
You can read the rest of the article in context by clicking "On Making a Whale".

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Israel, Conquests and Archaeology

Archaeology is one of the newer sciences, and can be tricky. It has been used to study all sorts of ancient and not-so-ancient civilizations. Only a few years ago, archaeologists were able to find what is probably George Washington's boyhood home. Imagine the added difficulties going back thousands instead of hundreds of years. Like other sciences, it has needed to develop techniques. Also like other sciences, archaeology can be less useful when it is approached with negative biases. Such was the case of studying Joshua and the Israelites' Conquest of Canaan.


The Taking of Jericho, J.J.J. Tissot
Although archaeological finds have never disproved the Bible, people have fallaciously argued from silence against it. That is, if something was not found to verify the biblical account, then the event did not happen. Add to that some misinterpretations of information, biases that "we won't find it anyway", and the conquest of Canaan was disputed. Better technology and a desire to actually search instead of making assumptions has changed the situation. Although we knew it all the time, God's Word has been verified — again.
Archaeological research in the Holy Land began in earnest in the 1800s, driven by a keen interest in the history of Bible lands. Joshua’s Conquest of Canaan soon became an important focus. Unfortunately, two developments eventually led most scholars to deny that the Conquest ever happened.

At first the digs were promising. One of the first cities excavated in Israel was Jericho, the first stop in Joshua’s campaign of conquest in the Promised Land. A group of German scholars did the first excavations at Jericho in the early 1900s. In the 1930s, British archaeologist John Garstang started new excavations at Jericho, finding local Canaanite pottery from Joshua’s time and evidence for massive destruction by a fierce fire, including ash deposits up to 3 feet (1 m) thick. The evidence was consistent with an Israelite attack on the city around 1400 BC, the biblical date for the Conquest
You can dig up the rest of this article at "Archaeology’s Lost Conquest".