Mathematics Cannot be Racist

Western civilization is accelerating into a spiral ever-increasing absurdity. Misotheists are becoming more vituperative, science is being used as an authority figure to further leftist ends, critical race theory is a tool for neo-Marxism. A month was designated to celebrate black people which was hijacked to promote the wicked BLM movement (which is a religious ideology without hope), and we were bombarded with demands to support black businesses (no, I support good products and services at fair prices), and so on.

Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann

June is the month to celebrate taking pride in unnatural sexual practices, and again, we are bombarded with advertisements and media programming for this. Did anyone even know that May is Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month? My streaming services were not setting aside categories for this like they did the others, no advertising in my email, television, or the post office box. Maybe leftists didn't find a way to make them into useful idiots. People are being "deplatformed" by cancel culture, yet the Bearded Buddha is still sitting pretty. I guess materialism negates outrage at racism, and the fact that evolution is fully compatible with Marxist ideas keeps Darwin on his pedestal.

Make-your-own-truth postmodernism is prompting people to declare that mathematics is racist. Oh, please! That is appallingly stupid! Although hating white people is in vogue, there is no rational way to turn math into something racist. If those feckless race baiters want to be consistent, they need to stop using math themselves, and that's going to be mighty difficult because we all use it in one form or another every day. Do they live in buildings that were designed by engineers? Do they count the days? Do they listen to digital music? Do they use computers, go online, watch streaming services? They'd better stop.

Yes, I get mighty riled at such blatant stupidity. The fact that "math is racist" stuff is given the time of day prompts me to think of two things: people lack logical thinking skills, and that we are under God's judgment. All of the things I mentioned can be herded into the corral of "God gave them over" (Rom. 1:28). Logic is a reflection of God's nature, and we are bearers of God's image, so we can use it.

Mathematics is also an expression of God's nature. (If you study on it, it seems that calling math "racist" is insulting to God.) Digging deeper, we learn that, like logic, mathematics is a reflection of God's nature. Naturalism and evolutionism cannot explain immaterial things.

Did you know that mathematics could be racist, and that there is such a thing as ‘white math’? A claim is being made in some US academic circles that to insist that there is a correct answer to a statement like ‘2 + 2 = x’, is inherently racist, and that mathematics needs to be made antiracist. . . . 

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) a prominent anti-Christian philosopher and mathematician, a professed atheist, and Sergiu Klainerman, a professor of mathematics at Princeton University, among others, would disagree with the premise that mathematics is inherently racist. From a Christian perspective, we can add the fact that the basic principles of logic and mathematics cannot be racist nor are they in any way subjective human constructs, because they come from the perfect (Psalm 18:30) and holy (1 Samuel 2:2; Revelation 4:8) mind of God. Let us explore the reality that mathematics comes from the mind of God.

To read the full article, calculate your way over to "Mathematics — From the mind of God". You may also be interested in how Dr. Greg Bahnsen dismantled the essay “Why I Am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell. Helpful hint: if you have some kind of reader mode, switch to that for the Bahnsen material.

Very Little Help Cleaning Up the Environment

There are expressions about the little things in life and how they matter, such as rainbows, puppies, kittens, sunsets, a nice tune on the radio, bacon, an encouraging word, and so on. I am going to pull the ol' switcheroo on you now and make it literal. The little things that count in this case are microbes.

Oil spill image credit: Flickr / ARLIS Reference (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Before I continue, this seems like a good place to denounce selfish idiots who litter their Wuhan virus facemasks and rubber gloves. I can't say what I'm thinking here, so suffice to say, stop it at once.

Humans are dumping all sorts of toxic things like plastics in the oceans, and there have been some oil spills that were downright disastrous. Indeed, recovery seemed almost hopeless at the time. Our Creator has made provisions through various microbes that actually consume oil and plastics.

Some were genetically altered, others were frontloaded with the ability to feast on other things, so oil and plastics are a different flavor on the smörgåsbord. Of course, Darwinists try to capitalize on this, but it actually has nothing to do with evolution.

Are we in danger of destroying life on the planet by continually dumping millions of tons of polyurethane plastics into our waterways and landscapes and by enormous oil spills in the oceans? In both cases, the problems may sound insurmountable until we remember that our God is both the Creator and Sustainer of life and planet earth.

. . .

Help came from another unexpected source after two major oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. In June 1979 Mexico’s Ixtoc oil well exploded and spewed 30,000 barrels of oil per day for ten months. . . .

Though many questions about long-term effects still need answers, the doomsaying seems highly exaggerated. Two years after the Ixtoc spill, many were surprised at how quickly those environments returned to health. Just three decades later, people are hard-pressed to find any evidence of the spill, and the same thing is happening with the BP spill. It turns out that the lion’s share of the clean-up is done by oil-eating bacteria.

To read the full article or download the audio version, see "Environmental Clean-Up Crew". Also, a couple of other related evolution-refuters are "Underground Oil Buffet Thwarts Old Earth Beliefs" and "Nylon-Eating Bacteria and Adaptation".

Evolutionists Upset Over Lack of Evidence

Here is a simple concept in logic. If you are putting forward an idea or hypothesis, there should be evidence to support it. For that matter, additional data should give it further credence. You with me so far? If there is nothing reinforcing the idea, then it should be discarded. It does not happen with evolution, though. No siree! 

Modified from an image by Mwangi Gatheca at Unsplash

Believers work in Charlie Darwin's Fudge Factory and use the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™ when they should realize that the facts support recent creation. Darwin's votaries are making excuses and also fudging what little data they have. Some lamented that the evidence just isn't there — which is something biblical creationists have said all along.

Also, some evolutionists say there is a "mosaic" of parts. In a real mosaic, don't things belong together for the most part? There is also a lack of consensus about the "fact" human evolution. Rock solid there, Sebastian, everyone riding off in different directions.

Public school textbooks assert that apes and humans emerged from an ape-like animal, whereas Genesis 1 says that God created humans and the different animal kinds right from the start. What difficulties would one expect researchers to encounter as they search for evidence of human evolution if humans never actually evolved? Two excuses in a recent summary of the sad status of human evolution unwittingly verify what the Bible has been saying all along about where humans came from.

Publishing in America’s top journal, Science, Sergio Almécija at the American Museum of Natural History led a small team to report big difficulties with the story that primates and people share an ancestral animal. The big problem? Almécija summarized it in a research post, saying, “When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess—there’s no consensus whatsoever.”

To read the rest, follow Darwinists to the Crimea River (sound it out, you'll get it) or simply click on "Two Excuses for Human Evolution Confusion".

Secularists Lament Scientific Misinformation

The sound you hear is not she-wolves giving birth to broken glass, but of elitists in the secular science industry fussing about scientific illiteracy in the public. There is supposedly a spread of what they consider misinformation. Well, sure, people are not exactly hanging out in the employee lounge discussing particle physics or the ever-changing status of where australopithecines allegedly belong in the human family tree. Secularists are upset about the misunderstanding of consensus narratives by us commoners.

Credit: Morguefile / bekkli

Several organizations perpetuate the myth of brilliant scientists being impartial and not prone to depredations. Some outfits even allow that there have been bad peer-reviewed papers that were retracted, but most of the blame belongs to the public. Whyzat? It would help if they didn't keep their problems on the back burner, and also if papers didn't reference bad papers for support.

Before secularists commence to blaming others, they should remember that there's not much critical thinking being taught in the indoctrination centers (public schools). Indeed, people need to be taught how to think, not what to think. It makes it easier for secularists to control the thoughts of the public when they have little skill analyzing what is being proclaimed from the ivory towers. It could very well be that secularists are angry that they do not have enough control. Just a thought.

Biblical creationists are irritants to those owlhoots because we try to teach people how to use critical thinking and spot errors in logic, bad science, insufficient research, and so on. Some of us don't worship scientism, and reject materialism and fish-to-fool evolution. While we appreciate and use science, we also know that biblical miracles really happened, God created the world in six days, Jesus was crucified and arose from the dead, people must repent and make Jesus the Lord of their lives, that he is coming back, and more. 

To learn what prompted this here post, saddle up and ride over to "Who Decides What Is Misinformation About Science?"

Using the Bible as Evidence for Creation

Centuries ago (or so it feels), I foolishly took the approach of presenting scientific evidence for creation so people could see the truth, reject evolution, and fall on their knees to accept Jesus like in a Chick tract. Life is not like that. People cherish materialism, and I cannot count the times I have seen people make excuses to reject God. There is no neutral ground. It's been rightly said that when someone askes you to be neutral: they are not, Christians should not be. But how can we use the Bible as evidence for creation?

Assembled from components at Open Clipart

People who want a creationist to be "neutral" are presupposing atheistic materialism. They want us to operate by their rules and definitions. Worse, the idea of "neutral ground" is denying teachings in the Bible! It tells us that unbelievers are blinded to the truth about God. They are in no position to put the Creator of the universe on trial and decide in their futile fallen wisdom whether or not God is worthy of worship.

In addition, the Bible has explanations for what is observed and has the necessary preconditions of the human experience. The Flood explains geology and the Ice Age, the problem of sin, why we have genetic entropy, and more. Further, the Bible is an important book of history. They use their materialistic presuppositions to interpret evidence materialistically, and creationists show how things make sense through our biblical presuppositions.

Have you ever had a skeptic tell you to keep the Bible out of it when discussing origins? Skeptics claim we Christians argue in a circle, that we are using the Bible to prove the Bible. Although this objection has an air of wisdom to it, Christians shouldn’t fall for it.

Bible skeptics claim to be open-minded people who fairly weigh the evidence. If so, they won’t object when Christians show that the Bible makes better sense of the scientific and historical data than other worldviews.

I hope you'll read the rest over at "Is the Bible Evidence for Creation?" Also, I suggest reading "Why Do Creationists Use the Bible for Science?"

Natural Selection and a Polka-Dotted Zebra

All of the other zebra kids laugh and call him names, and refuse to let him play in any zebra games. Kids can be so cruel. Okay, that is anthropomorphizing. It may not be too far from the truth, however. Critters often shun those that are different. Sometimes they help eliminate them because natural selection (the real one, not Papa Darwin's hijacked version) is culling, not creative.

Original image: Unsplash / Maarten van den Heuvel

If you're disappointed that I didn't include an image of the polka-dotted zebra that was in the news, I wasn't certain of my ground for Fair Use, nor was I willing to pay $175 USD for one. But there's no reason I can't post a video of it at the bottom of this here post.

Believers in fish-to-foal evolution are often confused or even misleading about variations and species. Far too often, a slight change is touted as evidence for evolution, but that is the opposite of the truth. Creationists have known for a mighty long time that there are variations, whether through natural selection or mutations. A polka-dotted zebra is the result of a mutation, which usually means something is broken in the genome. It may be minor and only affecting appearance, or it could mean something else is wrong as well. So, don't get your herd in an uproar, old son. God is still the Creator, and no evolution to see here. Just an Equus of a different color. Sorta.

Wildlife photographer Frank Liu recounted, “At first glance he looked like a different species altogether.” Understandably so, given that the foal lacks the dazzling white-and-black stripiness so characteristic of zebras. . . .

Similar polka-dot colouration has been observed on zebra foals elsewhere in Africa, e.g. Botswana. According to University of California biologist Brenda ‘Ren’ Larison, the condition is a form of pseudomelanism. This is a rare genetic mutation (an inheritable genetic accident) affecting melanin (pigment) production, which results in abnormality in the stripe pattern.

To read the rest, spot the link to "Polka-dotted zebra".

Mysteries of Ice Age Animal Bigness

People are impressed by large things, especially animals, whether real or imaginary. Visual entertainment includes kaiju, rampaging dinosaurs, and even cute but big critters. People are also fascinated by bigness in reality. Entertainment and curiosity raise questions, including about those creatures that lived in the Ice Age.

Saber-tooth tiger image credit: Pixabay / Lutz Peter

So, why were so many larger than others in their created kinds (similar to the family level in modern classifications)? Living things do not have a fondness for following human rules, but there are a few observations that have the word rule tacked on that may be helpful.

Edward Drinker Cope had a rule (observation) that a species in lower strata was smaller than that in upper strata of the same kind of animal. Carl Bergmann noticed that some in colder climates were larger than those where it was warmer. It may not be a case of one rule being right and the other wrong, but mayhaps both are working to some extent.

Riding up on the hill so we can see the big picture, we're taking a biblical creation science approach. Secularists cannot account for even one ice age, let alone many of them. We maintain that there was one Ice Age that was a result of the Genesis Flood. In addition, the account of Noah's Ark is true, and (to simplify this part), dinosaur kinds were on the Ark — juveniles, of course. (Don't be fooled by disingenuous caricatures by atheopaths about dinosaurs and the Ark.) Dispersion of animals after the Flood, the Ice Age, Cope's and Bergmann's rules, and other factors can be configured in plausible creationist conjectures.

Ice Age animals, especially the large mammals, seem to have won a special place in people’s hearts. While plenty of other strange and wonderful fossils inhabit museums, let’s face facts: nobody makes children’s movies or television shows about armored fish or extinct sea-scorpions. . . .

One reason for our fascination is that many familiar animals possessed unusual traits during the Ice Age (who put hair on those elephants?) or lived in unusual places (why did giant South American armadillos move to Texas?). The main interest, however, is that they were, well, big. Something about being big impresses us. An ordinary beaver: no big deal. But an eight-foot-long beaver: now that’s impressive!

To read the entire article (or listen to the audio version by a marvelous reader), chill out at "Why Were Ice Age Animals So Big?"