A while ago there was an atheist's convention in Melbourne; couldn't make it myself, but if I had I would have had T-shirts for sale with slogans such as:
Support evolution eat plutonium.
I use Dioxin for my mutations, how about you?
or: Mutate faster, drink Dioxin
or: Evolve faster, drink Dioxin (Dioxin clearly has lots of mileage here)
A mutation a day brings the doctor his pay.
Check the latest mutations, visit a hospice.
Don't ask me, I just evolved that way!
Wrong!? Just wait until some other morals evolve.
Help evolution, move to Bhopal.
Chimp operas: only 2% worse than humans'.
Now, prizes for the best contributions in comments (the prize is I won't trash your comment).
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Chaser chases Peter
I saw an old Chaser (Chaser's war on everything, an ABC TV show) where one of the chasers was doing just that: chasing...Peter Jensen.
The object of the chase was asking Peter to explain his response to Leviticus 20:13.
Peter grinned and walked on.
What a great way (NOT) to deal with an evangelical opportunity on national TV...so is Peter really evangelical...is he ready to represent the faith?
So, what could he have said that would have had evangelical intent.
Here's a thought:
"If you were an ancient Jew, it would be worth talking about that quote, but you're not are you?"
"I'd be more concerned that you find the God who wants to put our selfishness to one side so we can be with him forever in real love, not the hot panting of males missing the point."
The object of the chase was asking Peter to explain his response to Leviticus 20:13.
Peter grinned and walked on.
What a great way (NOT) to deal with an evangelical opportunity on national TV...so is Peter really evangelical...is he ready to represent the faith?
So, what could he have said that would have had evangelical intent.
Here's a thought:
"If you were an ancient Jew, it would be worth talking about that quote, but you're not are you?"
"I'd be more concerned that you find the God who wants to put our selfishness to one side so we can be with him forever in real love, not the hot panting of males missing the point."
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Knocked out, dazed, but blithely unaware
A couple of items in the press recently present a nice line up of the irrationality of the SADs.
1. One Bruce Haddon is at logger heads with the rector of his parish, Dominic Steele (ex 2GB journo from mem'ry) is concerned by, it would appear, Mr Haddon's disbelief in the virgin birth. The Herald reports this.
2. Atheism's true belivers gather together. In this Herald article we are told that atheists are really opposed to "the denial of the theory of evolution".
Now, if atheists are really opposed to something, you'd think it was because it stymied atheism. On the other hand the SADs, who don't think the notion of organic evolution is opposed to biblical theism, are worried because one man has taken that view to its logical conclusion: only things that science permits can occur!
I'll leave the reader to judge who is reaping what they sow.
1. One Bruce Haddon is at logger heads with the rector of his parish, Dominic Steele (ex 2GB journo from mem'ry) is concerned by, it would appear, Mr Haddon's disbelief in the virgin birth. The Herald reports this.
2. Atheism's true belivers gather together. In this Herald article we are told that atheists are really opposed to "the denial of the theory of evolution".
Now, if atheists are really opposed to something, you'd think it was because it stymied atheism. On the other hand the SADs, who don't think the notion of organic evolution is opposed to biblical theism, are worried because one man has taken that view to its logical conclusion: only things that science permits can occur!
I'll leave the reader to judge who is reaping what they sow.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Smart
From time to time, I've heard people quibble at Adam naming all the kinds of animals in an afternoon.
Well, consider the following links to articles about so-called 'savants'. People of seemingly extraordinary mental powers, who also appear to have a level of intellectual disability. This is not to say anything but the human mind can exercise vast capability.
If Adam was without the limitations of the fall that we have inhereted, I see no difficulty with him doing as the scripture indicates.
Mathematical and language genius
Musical genius
'Savant' profiles.
Well, consider the following links to articles about so-called 'savants'. People of seemingly extraordinary mental powers, who also appear to have a level of intellectual disability. This is not to say anything but the human mind can exercise vast capability.
If Adam was without the limitations of the fall that we have inhereted, I see no difficulty with him doing as the scripture indicates.
Mathematical and language genius
Musical genius
'Savant' profiles.
Just so
In a review of the book "Catching the Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" (oh yeah, another meaningless effort to credit everything to 'evolution'), the reviewer, Simon Ings makes the following perceptive remark:
Good big ideas about evolution are rare. Often they're merely "just so" stories, stringing specious skeins of cause and effect over a much more complicated intellectual landscape. At first glance Wrangham's argument seems to have been fished from that dodgy pot.
Just so.
Then another review, on the same page, credits not cooking, but alcohol with making us who we are (I know, for some people, that is the case). More meaningless twaddle. At least the SADs might go along with this one: perhaps it gives a point to communion wine!
Both reviews in Spectrum, the Sydney Morning Herald's attempted literary weekend supplement.
Good big ideas about evolution are rare. Often they're merely "just so" stories, stringing specious skeins of cause and effect over a much more complicated intellectual landscape. At first glance Wrangham's argument seems to have been fished from that dodgy pot.
Just so.
Then another review, on the same page, credits not cooking, but alcohol with making us who we are (I know, for some people, that is the case). More meaningless twaddle. At least the SADs might go along with this one: perhaps it gives a point to communion wine!
Both reviews in Spectrum, the Sydney Morning Herald's attempted literary weekend supplement.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Re-paganising the church
John posted this comment to the post on paganising the church. It was so interesting I've taken the liberty posting it here, with my own comment appended to the post. Hope you don't mind, John.
Perhaps what disturbs me most of all from the mouth of these men who espouse this other Gospel is that they have imposed something other than Christ between the creation and God.
Paul and John are adamant that it is THROUGH and BY Christ that everything HAS ALREADY come into existence. If evolution, another principle, is the basis by which everything IS BEING brought into existence, then it's no longer Christ.
Atheists have asked me on many occasions, if evolution isn't true, then how did God bring the cosmos into existence. They are looking for a mechanical, material and/or reductionist process. And that's the difference: God doesn't require a process as he just thinks it into being, and it is so, whole and complete. It's an entirely different ballgame and the Christian doesn't need to allow the atheist to set the rules of the game.
Logically, there is nothing irrational in a Creator having no need of secondary principles to create by. It's not like I can't imagine another world scenario in which the Creator says something and that immediately comes into existence. It's certainly not like thinking of a world where there are bachelors with wives.
Yet, the Sydney Anglicans, philosophically supported by their atheist-inspired theology, must have something other than Christ being the Creator. They have to have a process doing God's work. This is nothing but a return to paganism. Jensen, within a single generation, has repaganised the Church.
And I added:
John's comment has touched something very interesting, I think.
If a 'principle' comes between God and his creation that is not Christ, then something other than God is basic to creation. That is, there is something else that is self-, or at least pre-existent apart from God.
If it is pre-existent to the creation, then God created before he created (or did some creating that we don't know of; maybe when he created the spirit world, but that's speculation). It seems that the cosmos of our experience is that which is created in its entirety, and no principles can be interposed between God's speaking and result in Genesis 1. The other scripture that can be brought to this theme would support this, I think (subject of a future post).
To suppose the contrary is to disregard the scripture, or to have a basic belief structure that is pagan, if not materialist, rather than Christian theist; If PJ is a theistic evolutionist, then he courts a very much anti-biblical position, to my mind.
Perhaps what disturbs me most of all from the mouth of these men who espouse this other Gospel is that they have imposed something other than Christ between the creation and God.
Paul and John are adamant that it is THROUGH and BY Christ that everything HAS ALREADY come into existence. If evolution, another principle, is the basis by which everything IS BEING brought into existence, then it's no longer Christ.
Atheists have asked me on many occasions, if evolution isn't true, then how did God bring the cosmos into existence. They are looking for a mechanical, material and/or reductionist process. And that's the difference: God doesn't require a process as he just thinks it into being, and it is so, whole and complete. It's an entirely different ballgame and the Christian doesn't need to allow the atheist to set the rules of the game.
Logically, there is nothing irrational in a Creator having no need of secondary principles to create by. It's not like I can't imagine another world scenario in which the Creator says something and that immediately comes into existence. It's certainly not like thinking of a world where there are bachelors with wives.
Yet, the Sydney Anglicans, philosophically supported by their atheist-inspired theology, must have something other than Christ being the Creator. They have to have a process doing God's work. This is nothing but a return to paganism. Jensen, within a single generation, has repaganised the Church.
And I added:
John's comment has touched something very interesting, I think.
If a 'principle' comes between God and his creation that is not Christ, then something other than God is basic to creation. That is, there is something else that is self-, or at least pre-existent apart from God.
If it is pre-existent to the creation, then God created before he created (or did some creating that we don't know of; maybe when he created the spirit world, but that's speculation). It seems that the cosmos of our experience is that which is created in its entirety, and no principles can be interposed between God's speaking and result in Genesis 1. The other scripture that can be brought to this theme would support this, I think (subject of a future post).
To suppose the contrary is to disregard the scripture, or to have a basic belief structure that is pagan, if not materialist, rather than Christian theist; If PJ is a theistic evolutionist, then he courts a very much anti-biblical position, to my mind.
Buffet Badge
In the Financial Review column "Pierpont's Dubious Distinction Awards" the Anglican diocese of Sydney gets a gong:
Buffet Badge for Investor of the Year
Goes to suggest that perhaps it wasn't on God's side! Just like Connect09: a work of man and not of God?
Buffet Badge for Investor of the Year
To the Anglican church for dropping $160 million on its share portfolio. Which proves that even with God on your side you couldn't beat the market in 2008-09.
Goes to suggest that perhaps it wasn't on God's side! Just like Connect09: a work of man and not of God?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Creation in Anglican newspaper
This letter on creation and the Bible's historicity popped up recently on another website (one we watch). Its worth keeping track of.
Friday, January 1, 2010
What happened?
In response to this comment
to a blog on Goldsworthy:
I replied:
Of course the Bible gives detailed history (events that can have time and space coordinates), odd how most people drift off from the historical backbone when it gets beyond Abraham. But this is the very point, one would think; of showing in terms of the space-time domination of our lives how we, as image bearing creatures are connected in terms of the real world we are in to the wilful creator who authored us, gave the 'image' and made the real world as the setting of our image-bearing. I know some hold that God did create us, but not in a way that is depicted in the Bible. One wonders whence such information, of course, and the value of a creation that cannot be represented in language that conveys meaning.
This summary of the Bible by Goldsworthy is also worth a look, IMO.
to a blog on Goldsworthy:
Nice outline.
Of course, the bible gave a lot of detailed history for that vague “creation to Abraham” part of the bible, but for some reason, nobody wants to take it seriously.
Just sayin’.
I replied:
Of course the Bible gives detailed history (events that can have time and space coordinates), odd how most people drift off from the historical backbone when it gets beyond Abraham. But this is the very point, one would think; of showing in terms of the space-time domination of our lives how we, as image bearing creatures are connected in terms of the real world we are in to the wilful creator who authored us, gave the 'image' and made the real world as the setting of our image-bearing. I know some hold that God did create us, but not in a way that is depicted in the Bible. One wonders whence such information, of course, and the value of a creation that cannot be represented in language that conveys meaning.
This summary of the Bible by Goldsworthy is also worth a look, IMO.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Dealing with mess
Hop over to Post Darwinist (one of the blogs we watch) for this article on information and life.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Darwin and Wallace
John, thanks for the link across to Nagel's award to Meyer's book.
A piece from the post on Science and Values deserves to be surfaced here:
A useful statement to bear in mind when we hear the usual doffing of hat and tugging of forelock in the direction of Darwin by our pals in the SAD, who are, of course, functioning at the intellectual level of gnats when it comes to creation and evolution.
And while we're on intellectual performance, have a look at the quote on Behe's blog from Joseph Thornton who has a very confused take on probabilistic calculus. On his line of argument, the probability of any event, or chain of events is so vanishingly small that nothing could have acutally happened. But we know that things do happen. Thornton I think takes actual events as inhabiting a probability density function, which in fact exists theoretically and prospectively. What actually happens is a different thing. So could we argue this way for evolution? Well, see below, but also we know the mechanism by which baseball teams win games. There is as yet no mechanism for 'grand scale' evolution, let alone the origin of life materialistically.
By way of contrast, have a look at On Probability and Systematics: Possibility, Probability, and Phylogenetic Inference Matthew H. Haber in Systematic Biology 2005 54(5):831-841
A piece from the post on Science and Values deserves to be surfaced here:
Michael A. Flannery, in his book ‘Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace's World of Life Challenged Darwinism’, shows that Darwin's exclusion of God from any involvement in the development of life was well entrenched in his mind long before he wrote ‘Origin of Species’. In other words, his belief that evolution could happen all by itself was not a product of his science but his philosophical position.
After many years of research, Wallace, second only to Charles Darwin as the 19th century's most noted English naturalist, came to the conclusion that evolution could not have happened without being guided by a higher intelligence, whereas Darwin held to the concept of randomness in evolution.
Writing in Forbes magazine, Flannery explained: "Darwin's own theory could hardly be called objectively scientific. Early influences on Darwin's youth established his predisposition to materialism and a dogmatic methodological naturalism [the exclusion of supernatural explanations] long before his voyage on the Beagle.
"In short, Darwin's metaphysic compelled his science. Wallace, on the other hand, was a tireless investigator who increasingly discerned design in nature. Unlike Darwin, Wallace's science compelled his metaphysics."
A useful statement to bear in mind when we hear the usual doffing of hat and tugging of forelock in the direction of Darwin by our pals in the SAD, who are, of course, functioning at the intellectual level of gnats when it comes to creation and evolution.
And while we're on intellectual performance, have a look at the quote on Behe's blog from Joseph Thornton who has a very confused take on probabilistic calculus. On his line of argument, the probability of any event, or chain of events is so vanishingly small that nothing could have acutally happened. But we know that things do happen. Thornton I think takes actual events as inhabiting a probability density function, which in fact exists theoretically and prospectively. What actually happens is a different thing. So could we argue this way for evolution? Well, see below, but also we know the mechanism by which baseball teams win games. There is as yet no mechanism for 'grand scale' evolution, let alone the origin of life materialistically.
By way of contrast, have a look at On Probability and Systematics: Possibility, Probability, and Phylogenetic Inference Matthew H. Haber in Systematic Biology 2005 54(5):831-841
Saturday, October 17, 2009
A pagan hits the spot
This popped up on the Anglican Origins blog: its so good it called for a link from here.
Put simply, its a letter to a local newspaper where someone denies a gospel approach because of disbelief in Genesis having any real world truth value! Sad, but a true conclusion abetted by a church that doesn't seem to know either what or why it believes!
Put simply, its a letter to a local newspaper where someone denies a gospel approach because of disbelief in Genesis having any real world truth value! Sad, but a true conclusion abetted by a church that doesn't seem to know either what or why it believes!
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Darwinists' dance in a circle
Slip over to Uncommon Descent for this post on the illogic of darwinian argument (clearly it is as yet insufficiently evolved!).
And while I'm linking around the shop, Denyse O'Leary has a piece on the conflict between science and fraud. On Haeckel, of course, but oh, so many still think he had something to say that was worth attending to.
And while I'm linking around the shop, Denyse O'Leary has a piece on the conflict between science and fraud. On Haeckel, of course, but oh, so many still think he had something to say that was worth attending to.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
It's about time, folks
Our pals over at Moore College insist that the question of time and the age of the universe is a non-issue when it comes to building a theology on the biblical data; such a non-issue that they vigorously defend axiomatic atheism's take on time! How cute. Just like their neglect of the implications of death and the fall for its cosmic effects, setting Paul neatly to one side. Double cute.
So, in this connection, this review of a book on Hutton, the man who found time, is worth a look.
So, in this connection, this review of a book on Hutton, the man who found time, is worth a look.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Science is Religious!
Over at Duane's mind (one of the blogs we watch) I caught the post: Can Science Disprove God?.
I liked Duane's post that headbutted the very idea, and well done to IMO.
But there's more.
Science depends upon religion. That is, science depends on our initial belief structure, or our 'religion', our religious inclination as to what we think is real and how we understand and respond to what we think is real, and will therefore produce real knowledge.
So Dawkins, whose first belief is a sort of unarticulated and internally contradictory materialism will naturally not find anything outside of his first belief in his take on science. That's not news. What is news is that his first belief will not produce the science he espouses. History has shown us that: it took classic Christian theism to produce a world view that was congenial to the development of modern science. Toss that out and you will eventually toss out the modern science that relies upon it.
I liked Duane's post that headbutted the very idea, and well done to IMO.
But there's more.
Science depends upon religion. That is, science depends on our initial belief structure, or our 'religion', our religious inclination as to what we think is real and how we understand and respond to what we think is real, and will therefore produce real knowledge.
So Dawkins, whose first belief is a sort of unarticulated and internally contradictory materialism will naturally not find anything outside of his first belief in his take on science. That's not news. What is news is that his first belief will not produce the science he espouses. History has shown us that: it took classic Christian theism to produce a world view that was congenial to the development of modern science. Toss that out and you will eventually toss out the modern science that relies upon it.
Exciting!
Hop over to the ABC-TV science program Catalyst for this program on an aspect of Einstein's general relativity theory.
If you don't find this exciting, then...well, there's no comparison really!
If you don't find this exciting, then...well, there's no comparison really!
Friday, May 8, 2009
For the slow learners
It's come up at least once before on this blog: various SADs, have not wanted to repeat the church's mistake made when it rejected Galileo's work and so reject the truth content of Genesis 1, but here we go again, just for the slow learners in St. Andrew's House, Moore College and the rest.
In trying to avoid the church's mistake back then they are doing precisely what the Roman church did; repeating the mistake (thus 'slow learners'). They are adopting the current popular philosophical view and rejecting observational science!! They are absorbing the speculation and rejecting what refutes it.
Hop over to the ABC Morning Interview (big file) where Throsby adulates (as she does) Dr Peter Slezak of UNSW, a lecturer in the phil. of science.
The interview celebrates the restaging of the trial of Galileo. Slezak chats on about this and other things.
He tells us about the role of dissidents in advancing science, that Galileo ran up against the Aristoteleans (not the church) who wanted to stick with their 'common sense' view of the world (common sense then, but not regarded as common sense now, only going to show how even the ordinary person is influenced by the ideas of the day); and importantly makes this remark, paraphrased:
"it wasn't the church that was resistant, as is the popular view, but the philosophers who refused to take seriously his observations".
The problem was, the church had read the philosphers' presumptions back into the Bible, just like theistic evolutionists do, in their philosophical juvenescence. Just like the SAD does, reading the Bible and making their theology on the basis of a world view in basic conflict with that of the Bible.
The story is more complex, of course, but I'll leave that research to you, dear reader.
Good one!
In trying to avoid the church's mistake back then they are doing precisely what the Roman church did; repeating the mistake (thus 'slow learners'). They are adopting the current popular philosophical view and rejecting observational science!! They are absorbing the speculation and rejecting what refutes it.
Hop over to the ABC Morning Interview (big file) where Throsby adulates (as she does) Dr Peter Slezak of UNSW, a lecturer in the phil. of science.
The interview celebrates the restaging of the trial of Galileo. Slezak chats on about this and other things.
He tells us about the role of dissidents in advancing science, that Galileo ran up against the Aristoteleans (not the church) who wanted to stick with their 'common sense' view of the world (common sense then, but not regarded as common sense now, only going to show how even the ordinary person is influenced by the ideas of the day); and importantly makes this remark, paraphrased:
"it wasn't the church that was resistant, as is the popular view, but the philosophers who refused to take seriously his observations".
The problem was, the church had read the philosphers' presumptions back into the Bible, just like theistic evolutionists do, in their philosophical juvenescence. Just like the SAD does, reading the Bible and making their theology on the basis of a world view in basic conflict with that of the Bible.
The story is more complex, of course, but I'll leave that research to you, dear reader.
Good one!
Monday, April 27, 2009
Not too barbed
I see that one of the blots we report has got airplay on one of the blogs we also report.
Check it here.
Two of our members have had a go at the Blogging Parsnip for his blog on fundamentalists. Watcher takes it further. We all wonder why the Parsnip didn't.
All down to the speed of the net and late night reading!!
Check it here.
Two of our members have had a go at the Blogging Parsnip for his blog on fundamentalists. Watcher takes it further. We all wonder why the Parsnip didn't.
All down to the speed of the net and late night reading!!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Margaret Thatcher on Creation
Caught this at Frontpagemag the other day:
The Religious Left will never quote her, but Margaret Thatcher outclassed Brueggemann when she articulated Christianity's stance towards economics in her 1988 speech to the Church of Scotland. "We are told we must work and use our talents to create wealth," she
recalled of the Scriptures, citing St.Paul's admonition:, "If a man will not work he shall not eat." She observed: "Abundance rather than poverty has a legitimacy which derives from the very nature of Creation."
Now, if she meant by creation theistic evolution, we'd have socialism of course: because that's what attention to Darwin in political life has often lead to: and clearly spelt out, of course.
The Religious Left will never quote her, but Margaret Thatcher outclassed Brueggemann when she articulated Christianity's stance towards economics in her 1988 speech to the Church of Scotland. "We are told we must work and use our talents to create wealth," she
recalled of the Scriptures, citing St.Paul's admonition:, "If a man will not work he shall not eat." She observed: "Abundance rather than poverty has a legitimacy which derives from the very nature of Creation."
Now, if she meant by creation theistic evolution, we'd have socialism of course: because that's what attention to Darwin in political life has often lead to: and clearly spelt out, of course.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Like Water for Chocolate
I couldn't believe this. An anglican church on the north shore of Sydney has on its notice board the great news that it will be door knocking the local area to give out Easter eggs!
Sorry Michael (that's the rector) Darrell Lea has already made that connection with Sydney.
I can see it now...'oh wow, the church is dropping off chocolate eggs, now its really connecting with my deepest needs'
Another dull idea from Connect09...Connect..oh dear!
Sorry Michael (that's the rector) Darrell Lea has already made that connection with Sydney.
I can see it now...'oh wow, the church is dropping off chocolate eggs, now its really connecting with my deepest needs'
Another dull idea from Connect09...Connect..oh dear!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
