Kevin started a “burden box” with his family where they write what they are worrying about and put it in the box. Then they commit to stop worrying about it and let God deal with it.
—
Do you want the United Nations to tell you how to raise your kids? Didn’t think so.
If you don’t want the UN granting your child autonomy rights; freedom of access to information, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and so forth, visit ParentalRights.org to learn more about the UNCRC. Obama and cohorts have pledged to see this ratified.
—
I’m still waiting for the political Left to endlessly mock Pres. Obama over his claim that the U.S. invented the automobile in the same fashion that they would have if Pres. Bush has made the misstatement . . . (or on any of the other gaffes Obama has made).
—
The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution – “Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress” – from Forbes.
To conflate contemporary scientific studies of existing organisms with those of the paleontologists serves mainly to misguide the public and teachers of the young. An examination of the papers in the National Academy of Sciences’ premiere journal, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), as well as many other journals and the Nobel awards for biological discoveries, supports the crucial distinction I am making.
Examining the major advances in biological knowledge, one fails to find any real connection between biological history and the experimental designs that have produced today’s cornucopia of knowledge of how the great variety of living organisms perform their functions. It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers and other practitioners of biological science.
—
100 enlightening Bible Study blogs – my other blog (Eternity Matters Bible Study Blog) is the first item in the first section.
—
Eternity Matters 
“from Forbes”
Good news to hear that Forbes has finally become a scientific magazine, or has it?
Joking aside, to my mind, this is just another example of retired people making an effort to stay in the limelight.
As a former chemist, Prof Skell may be just a bit more qualified to talk about evolution than, say, a lawyer, but definitlely not qualified enough to judge the issue.
All he does is utter his personal opinion on the matter. He has got every right to do so. But since his opinion is not up to scientific standards, he will only get published in magazines of a more general nature.
Quoting him as just an appeal to (false) authority, nothing more.
When you look into his assertions in more detail, it becomes clear that he is mistaken. Without the unifying idea of evolution, biology would not have become what it is today: “Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution”. This famous quote by Theodosius Dobzhansky says it all.
Maybe, without an understanding of the fact of evolution (the THEORY of evolution only explains the fact), there would most likely be no germ theory and people would still think that epidemics were caused by the wrath of God. Thus hundreds of millions of people millions would have suffered an unnecessary und often very cruel death.
But even if some of his claims were correct, what do they have to do with the truth of evolution?
We do not need the idea of the heliocentric model of our solar system in order to explain the Milky Way or black holes and vice versa. But would that disprove its verity?
So even if his claims WERE true, they are indeed irrelevant to the truth of evolution. Assuming anything else would be a logical fallacy.
LikeLike
Jason, you dismiss the author because Forbes isn’t a science magazine. You refer to it as “just an appeal to (false) authority.” Then you cite a quote that “says it all.” “Nothing” makes sense in biology except in light of evolution? Indeed.
And your bit about germ theory doesn’t compute . We could have learned plenty without the idea that life came from non-life and evolved to elephants, fish, people, caterpillar / butterflies, etc. Did we have to have Darwin’s work to discover microscopes?
Sometimes you guys are so wedded to your worldview that you miss the whole point of the article in question You just go into reflex-mode and attack points no one made. This is one of those times, and it is rather illuminating.
LikeLike
“Scientists often have a naive faith that if only they could discover enough facts about a problem, these facts would somehow arrange themselves in a compelling and true solution.”
Theodosius Dobzhansky
This is his second most famous quote.
I find it interesting that he mentions faith because if you are an evolutionist, you need a lot of faith. I would also like to read a book of facts that prove evolution. Jason, can you direct me to that book.
LikeLike
Neil,
I’m looking forward to this UN Law on the Rights of the Child. The only people that will part-take on it are the people that deserve it!
Plus the UN is a huge political party system that must end soon. People start wars when they want to and people help each other when they want to. UN is just wasting real estate and income. I would rather have the Vatican be the new UN. At least they have Bibles.
LikeLike
@Bill,
“I would also like to read a book of facts that prove evolution. Jason, can you direct me to that book.”
Glad to oblige: “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry A. Coyne.
What most people do not seem to realize: Evolution is indeed a fact, the theroy of evolution is the best available explanation of that fact.
“..if you are an evolutionist, you need a lot of faith.”
An erronous statement does not become true by repeating it over and over again.
To understand evolution you need knowledge more than anything else. And that is something opponents of evolution thoroughly lack. The more you learn about the ways of nature the harder it becomes to reject evolution. The is the reason why hardly any biologist is anti-evolution and people who reject evolution are either no scientists at all or little qualified to assess the subject.
The fact of evolution is undeniable (not by principle but because the evidence is overwhelming and there is nothiong to the contrary). The how and why of evolution is subject of the theory.
@Neil
“Jason, you dismiss the author because Forbes isn’t a science magazine.”
Yes, and rigfhtly so. If there was a debate about the truth of evolution, it would be run in scientific magazines. Has Skell published ANYTHING adressing evolution in ANY peer-reviewed scientific magazine? Most likely not, because he lacks the qualification to do so.
As far as the Dobzhansky quote is concerned, that is not an appeal to authority but just putting into a nutshell what nearly 100% of all biologists subscribe to. Since all life on Earth is the result of evolution, you just cannot make sense of the variety of life if you do not allow for evolution. (This may look like circular reasoning but is merely a statement of fact.)
Even proponents if ID admit this. They only claim that some mysterious force has helped along the process of evolution.
“Did we have to have Darwin’s work to discover microscopes?”
Of course not, because miscroscopes were developed before Darwin. But applying microscopes to problems of biology was greatly influenced by the theory of evolution. Evolution tells us that all living beings are related to each other by descent. So this gives a strong impetus to find out more about that relationship.
It is very likely that without the theory of evolution – to which there is no valid alternative anyway – a lot of discoveries either would have been made much later than they actually were – or not at all.
Without the theory of evolution chances are that biology would be a science of little interest to intelligent people and thus there would be a much smaller number of scientists working on the subject and a lot of things would not have been discovered by now.
Just praising the apparent wonders of nature does not make people as curious about it as when you want to find out what makes nature tick.
LikeLike
Jonas,
I only let your comment post because you answered Bill’s question. The rest was just off-topic, unsupported propoganda about evolution being fact.
Sure, if you loosely define it as “things change,” of course it is a fact. That is the equivocation that materialists trade on 24×7. Micro-evolution? No problem. We all know that is fact. Macro-evolution? Ha! Yes, folks, just ignore the frauds, the lack of academic honesty in suppressing other views, that pesky Cambrian explosion, etc.
Your criticism of the article appearing in Forbes was a straw man on multiple levels. The article was not a “debate about the truth of evolution,” it was demonstrating that even if it is true is is superfluous to scientific advancement. You completely (and deliberately?) missed the point. Your supporting quote by Dobzhansky was hyperbole.
Then you play the “it wasn’t in a scientific magazine” game, when if were honest you’d concede that the game is totally rigged against any criticisms of Darwinian theory. You lost a lot of credibility when you did that. EXPELLED! did such a great job of exposing the extreme bias of these “open minded” scientists.
Whether ID is true is irrelevant to the fact that academic and scientific freedoms have dramatically eroded. If you weren’t so focused on propping up a worldview designed to exclude God and if you were really concerned about scientific advances, you’d be outraged at what the establishment is doing. They are doing more to limit scientific advancement than criticisms of evolution are.
I’m guessing that when your local paper runs articles on pro-evolution lies (e.g., “Lucy”) that you don’t dismiss them out of hand because it isn’t a science magazine.
It looks like circular reasoning because it is circular reasoning. It also begs the questions. Two logical fallacies in one!
Now you are just making things up. Sure, they just would have been paper weights if Darwin hadn’t come along.
That’s just conjecture and question begging. And why no concern about the discoveries not being made because people fear losing out on tenure, getting fired, etc. for opposing the status quo?
More conjecture and question begging.
Jonas, feel free to make on-topic comments. I don’t have time or patience to address your random fallacies on whatever post you choose to paste them, so I’m giving you a friendly advance warning not to post those.
LikeLike
@Neil
I am not convinced. The very fact that we and a lot of others are able to discuss the issue shows that academic and scientific freedoms are still going strong. ICR and the Discovery Institute have not been made illegal, so they can disseminate their stuff. AiG was able to build a museum that propagates some controversial ideas about the real world. All this is covered by the freedom of speech laws.
They have all the freedom to contribute to scientific advancement but why don’t they do it? All they seem to do is uphold some very backward view of the world.
I am concerned about scientific advances and I am outraged about what people like Hovind, Ham and some others are doing: they make a mockery of science and mislead people into believing things that weren proven wrong a long time ago, e. g., claiming that dinosaurs and human beings once were contemporaries, to name but one.
Science does not seek to exclude God but tries to explain the world in natural terms without constantly invoking the interference of a supernatural being. And so far science has been very successful with that concept.
“God made it so.” is never a good answer when you come across a seemingly difficult problem, because that would bring research to a halt. Newton fell into that trap when he contented himself with the answer that God finely adjusted the motion of the planets in order to perpetuate their revolutions. Thus it was left to the French mathematician and astronomer Laplace to resolve Newton’s problem almost 150 years later. Newton probably would have been able to do it, but “God made it so.” was a perfectly satisfying answer to him.
However, even if the scientific method very successfully tries to solve problems without invoking the actions of a supernatural force on the real world, it stands to reason that the interferences of such a force would be detected if they were real, because then science would come across problems that could not be solved by applying that method.
Any miracle that could not finally be explained away as a naturally occurring phenomenon would by the very same scientific method prove the existence of the supernatural. But so far nothing in the real world seems to point that way.
LikeLike
Jason, you have got to be kidding me. You switch from mocking a scientific article because it is in Forbes then you pretend that discussion in non-scientific publications and blogs prove that academic freedoms aren’t being suppressed on campus. Thanks for being so transparent with your disingenuousness.
Your “God made it so” accusation is a flawed. Your “science of the gaps” is far more telling. Something came from nothing, life came from non-life, we all evolved from primordial soup . . . sure. Only you have no evidence. You don’t even have good evidence for Darwinian evolution. But you are just sure you’ll figure out the something from nothing someday.
Many great scientists seek real answers by seeing how God put things together. Just because God did it doesn’t mean we can’t figure out some of what He did. You just use a convenient straw man to dismiss our views. Nice try.
That proves nothing. God made an orderly universe, so we would expect the scientific method to work. False dichotomy on your part.
Your last couple paragraphs don’t prove anything. As usual, you try to explain the immaterial with tools designed to test the material. When they don’t work, you claim victory. If they did work, you’d say the tools were in error. You live in a tautological world.
You started off with a little credibility here, but your last couple comments have blown it. I encourage you to go to http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/ . He is glad to talk 24×7 about evolution.
LikeLike
Jason,
I scanned through “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry A. Coyne.
It all seems like conjecture and theory. What in there is a fact? Please direct me to those facts in the book. Page numbers would be helpful.
LikeLike
Hi Bill,
Unfortunately, Jason was just another one of those folks who couldn’t obey commenting guidelines and resorted to ad hominem arguments. No time for that here. He goes straight to the sp*m filter now. It is sadly ironic how the alleged “reason” crowd abandons it so quickly. Then again, when you try to prop up an aggressive God-denying worldview that is somewhat inevitable.
Here’s just part of one comment: “creationists are either willfully ignorant or just liars. . . the fraudulous bunch of idiots who call themselves creationists. . . . What utterly abject idiots!!! . . . creationists morons . . . abject liar.”
How charming and compelling.
The funny thing is that his beloved fairy tale (nothing becoming something, highly complex life coming from non-life then evolving to all the species we see today, consciousness coming from materials, morality coming from nothing, etc.) would be 100% responsible for the Christian worldview. 100%. Where else could it come from? There is no foundation in it for free will or morality.
If his worldview is true then it is what made virtually all historians agree on the following:
– Jesus died on a cross.
– his disciples believe He rose from the dead.
– that the Apostle Paul converted from persecuting Christians to becoming Christianity’s greatest advocated, including writing Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and more. These put essential Christian doctrines and beliefs within 20-30 years of the crucifixion.
– After the crucifixion, Jesus’ brother James went from being a skeptic to a believer, a leader in the early church and a martyr.
If his worldview is true then it is what made me think that the most logical explanation for those facts, among other things, is that Jesus really rose from the dead. It made even skeptical textual critics agree that we know with 99.5% accuracy what the original writings of the Bible said, and to 100% on all key doctrines. It makes me think that the real explanation for his that he suppresses the truth about God in unrighteousness:
Wow, what a worldview he has! It is responsible for so many things, including my “irrational” idea that continuing a dialogue with him would not be wise or fruitful. But wait . . . how can anything truly be irrational in a universe that has the properties he believes it has?
And why is he so irrational in blaming us if we can’t control ourselves? Why all the name calling? I’m just a slave to my DNA and can’t be held accountable for my thoughts.
LikeLike
Sad story!
You are trying to be ironic but you utterly fail to impress anyone but the most stupid idiots of your ilk.
Your hollow assertions and downright lies only prove once again that creationists are not really worth discussing with.
They are either too stupid to understand a reasoned argument or too dishonest to admit the truth when they are defeated.
You delete everything that does not fit into your extremely narrow-minded worldview and deliberately withhold information, so that your flock is not tempted to think for themselves.
No further proof required. People like you were, are and always will be idiots, totally immune to anything that shows reason. You live in a dreamworld and in one that is full of inconsistencies, but you are too dim to see through all the kibosh that makes up your world.
Absolutely hilarious! Another of these stories that people have made up in order to spin just another yarn to this unlikely story.
Neil said: Sorry, I had to post one more of Jason’s tantrums. ” . . . stupid idiots of your ilk.” Heh.
As I noted, virtually all historians agree on James’ conversion. That he would so glibly write off that evidence is just more proof of his desire to ignore the truth. Go find a mirror, buddy.
Oh, yes, and regarding my “flock” — you know, the people I keep here against their will and don’t let them access any other Internet sites . . . who might they be?
It is so ironic that defenders of academic repression like that outlined in Expelled! squeal like stuck pigs when one little blogger won’t post their off-topic logical fallacy-fests. If it is bad that I delete comments like his, he should be going insane over the injustices done in colleges today against people who behave like adults and with the guts to question Darwinism. Alas, consistency isn’t the materialist’s strong suit.
Good thing for Jason that I can’t cost him his job or his reputation, eh?
LikeLike
Neil,
The Bible says that Satan often is responsible for our blindness to truth. God often allows that for a time. You did your best to be truthful and have dialog with Jason. Just like the apostle Paul, God may be waiting for the perfect time to get Jason’s attention. Until that time there will be others planting seeds of truth in Jason’s path. Also, what led Jason to “Eternity Matters?” Perhaps the same spirit that led Paul to Damascus.
LikeLike
Mmmm, Neil, you beat me to it. I had the exact phrase about Jason’s circular reasoning post in my head and ready to type until I saw you post it.
Quickdraw McGraw.
LikeLike
On the Scripture blog plug for your site:
Congratulations, Neil!
Sirius Knott
PS – Pray for me as I will be giving a presentation to Answers in Genesis on the Creation Letter Project / creationletter.com in three weeks!
PPS – Yes, send the little minions my way if they’d like to talk about evolution. I’ll entertain them after my fashion. After all, God has given me the gift of provocation. ;]
LikeLike
Thanks, Sirius! You do such a great job of it and I have limited time (and patience) to deal with it. I weave it in now and then but have so much else to cover.
I’ll pray for your presentation!
LikeLike