In which Ken Ham gets virtually no opportunity to argue for his views, and the validity of his museum... That's the media for you. Tell me what you think about this.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Becoming Charles Darwin
In this video, Bill Potter explains how he came to play the part of Charles Darwin at Vision Forum's recent debate between John Calvin and Darwin at the Reformation 500 in Boston. I think you'll like it!
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Voyage that Shook the World
Creation Ministries International will be releasing an exciting new documentary called The Voyage that Shook the World, which comes as a challenge to the hyper-Darwinian dogma being propagated all over the world this year - Darwin's 200th birthday. Here are two trailers for the film.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Responding to the Judge
This is an article I pulled from the archives of my personal blog, in which I responded to a judge's evaluation of a little poem I wrote about Creation, and commented on the controversy in general.
___________________________________________________________
You already know that so-called "science" and "religion" are at odds today. They're seen as mutually exclusive, so if you want to engage in science, of course you must suspend your beliefs and be "objective." Be careful that you don't come to the table with any preconceptions or a cohesive, decided worldview or you will inevitable skew the scientific process and commit the sin of "subjectivity" in your research. Right?
Well, actually no. With that view we now have a problem; how can any scientist be certain that certain laws of nature that were true yesterday will hold true tomorrow? We're trying to be objective here! Why would he expect anything in nature to be uniform or constant, if he doesn't first assume that the laws of nature will continue to act as they always have? You see, the scientist that relies solely on unadulterated observation has no good reason to believe that anything will be the same when he wakes up tomorrow morning. No reason at all.
Think about his underlying worldview for a moment. First of all he has outlawed God from the universe--supernatural reality is absurd in his view, and oh so "non-scientific." So what is he left with? Well, to be honest, absolutely nothing. Literally! ;) Without an initial creative act, how could someone postulate that something came from nothing, matter came from non-matter? "Well, that's just one of those things we have to accept by faith!"...though they probably wouldn't express it quite that way. :) Big problem guys. You can't explain to me how something came from nothing, even though that is the fundamental factor for your theory to even have a chance of working?! Evolution falls apart on this point.
Obviously evolutionists have a strong commitment to something which prevents them from acknowledging the Creator, and causes them to approach a field which they have no ideological right to, because in their worldview they have no basis for the uniformity of nature. Dad posted some excellent thoughts on this topic here.
So whatever happened to objectivity Mr. Scientist? You see, we all have preconceptions and fundamental beliefs. But when you're asked to capitulate your position and be "objective," realize that the atheist intends to remain armed.
All that by way of introduction, here's the real reason I decided to address this topic. Last week I received the judge's comments on my writing, photography, sketching and painting from the Young Birder of the Year competition, which I recently won. The professional feedback is really valuable and encouraging to me. I try to make a conscious effort to show forth my faith in my work, and last year I wrote a short poem expressing the clarity with which Creation points to its Creator. Read it here: "This Must Be God's Hand". I realize it's kind of a simplistic piece--I'm not a poet--but I tried to capture something of the wonder of nature and how it rebukes the atheist, materialist worldview.
As I excitedly scanned over the judges' reactions I was shocked to learn that I wasn't being "objective!" I mean, I try to be a good ornithologist and be careful about my observations, but all along I guess I was self-deceived. In the spirit of the literary masterpiece, "Little Mouse and the Big Hungry Bear," there's only one way to be a good, objective scientist. It's easy. Simply accept...evolution? Wait a minute...
"This poem definitely evokes wonder. As your study of birds progresses, you may find yourself needing to consider what scientists believe to be the truth of evolution. It's demonstrably visible in the process of speciation, which is going on before our eyes and in our lifetimes. Nothing is static in the natural world, and evolution is an ongoing and vital process that should not be summarily dismissed as random or theoretical..."
"I think your style would benefit from a healthy dose of objectivity. Check your beliefs and pre-conceptions at the door and write about and describe what you see and feel. Focus not on how you believe a bird came to be or its purpose in the grand scheme, rather the bird itself, its nature, behavior and essence..."
Don't get me wrong. I really appreciate all the comments and insights that the judges bring to my work, but when someone questions the authenticity of doing science from a Christian worldview, I need to respond to that. (If only to clarify what I believe on the subject and how I should answer when questioned) And I don't mean to offend any of these people who lent their time and effort to the judging process--they weren't being harsh. But they are wrong in assuming that a belief in evolution is the only "objective" way to approach science.
You know what I find ironic? In the second quote, he tells me to remain objective in my observations, then immediately turns around and tells me to be subjective. See that? If I started to inscribe my personal feelings about a bird in my notebook, how objective is that? Interesting.
It all comes down to definitions. When an atheist says "be objective" he means, "Abandon this silly notion that God exists and is the sovereign Creator of the universe." "Stop worshiping the Creator, and instead worship the creature."
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures." --Romans 1:18-23
What a telling passage. It's an age-old problem folks. We need to understand that the only rational way of doing science is by first accepting God, as He has revealed Himself in Creation and in Scripture, as the only stable foundation for studying the complexities of the things He has created, and continues to sustain through his almighty power and sovereignty.
___________________________________________________________
You already know that so-called "science" and "religion" are at odds today. They're seen as mutually exclusive, so if you want to engage in science, of course you must suspend your beliefs and be "objective." Be careful that you don't come to the table with any preconceptions or a cohesive, decided worldview or you will inevitable skew the scientific process and commit the sin of "subjectivity" in your research. Right?
Well, actually no. With that view we now have a problem; how can any scientist be certain that certain laws of nature that were true yesterday will hold true tomorrow? We're trying to be objective here! Why would he expect anything in nature to be uniform or constant, if he doesn't first assume that the laws of nature will continue to act as they always have? You see, the scientist that relies solely on unadulterated observation has no good reason to believe that anything will be the same when he wakes up tomorrow morning. No reason at all.
Think about his underlying worldview for a moment. First of all he has outlawed God from the universe--supernatural reality is absurd in his view, and oh so "non-scientific." So what is he left with? Well, to be honest, absolutely nothing. Literally! ;) Without an initial creative act, how could someone postulate that something came from nothing, matter came from non-matter? "Well, that's just one of those things we have to accept by faith!"...though they probably wouldn't express it quite that way. :) Big problem guys. You can't explain to me how something came from nothing, even though that is the fundamental factor for your theory to even have a chance of working?! Evolution falls apart on this point.
Obviously evolutionists have a strong commitment to something which prevents them from acknowledging the Creator, and causes them to approach a field which they have no ideological right to, because in their worldview they have no basis for the uniformity of nature. Dad posted some excellent thoughts on this topic here.
So whatever happened to objectivity Mr. Scientist? You see, we all have preconceptions and fundamental beliefs. But when you're asked to capitulate your position and be "objective," realize that the atheist intends to remain armed.
All that by way of introduction, here's the real reason I decided to address this topic. Last week I received the judge's comments on my writing, photography, sketching and painting from the Young Birder of the Year competition, which I recently won. The professional feedback is really valuable and encouraging to me. I try to make a conscious effort to show forth my faith in my work, and last year I wrote a short poem expressing the clarity with which Creation points to its Creator. Read it here: "This Must Be God's Hand". I realize it's kind of a simplistic piece--I'm not a poet--but I tried to capture something of the wonder of nature and how it rebukes the atheist, materialist worldview.
As I excitedly scanned over the judges' reactions I was shocked to learn that I wasn't being "objective!" I mean, I try to be a good ornithologist and be careful about my observations, but all along I guess I was self-deceived. In the spirit of the literary masterpiece, "Little Mouse and the Big Hungry Bear," there's only one way to be a good, objective scientist. It's easy. Simply accept...evolution? Wait a minute...
"This poem definitely evokes wonder. As your study of birds progresses, you may find yourself needing to consider what scientists believe to be the truth of evolution. It's demonstrably visible in the process of speciation, which is going on before our eyes and in our lifetimes. Nothing is static in the natural world, and evolution is an ongoing and vital process that should not be summarily dismissed as random or theoretical..."
"I think your style would benefit from a healthy dose of objectivity. Check your beliefs and pre-conceptions at the door and write about and describe what you see and feel. Focus not on how you believe a bird came to be or its purpose in the grand scheme, rather the bird itself, its nature, behavior and essence..."
Don't get me wrong. I really appreciate all the comments and insights that the judges bring to my work, but when someone questions the authenticity of doing science from a Christian worldview, I need to respond to that. (If only to clarify what I believe on the subject and how I should answer when questioned) And I don't mean to offend any of these people who lent their time and effort to the judging process--they weren't being harsh. But they are wrong in assuming that a belief in evolution is the only "objective" way to approach science.
You know what I find ironic? In the second quote, he tells me to remain objective in my observations, then immediately turns around and tells me to be subjective. See that? If I started to inscribe my personal feelings about a bird in my notebook, how objective is that? Interesting.
It all comes down to definitions. When an atheist says "be objective" he means, "Abandon this silly notion that God exists and is the sovereign Creator of the universe." "Stop worshiping the Creator, and instead worship the creature."
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures." --Romans 1:18-23
What a telling passage. It's an age-old problem folks. We need to understand that the only rational way of doing science is by first accepting God, as He has revealed Himself in Creation and in Scripture, as the only stable foundation for studying the complexities of the things He has created, and continues to sustain through his almighty power and sovereignty.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Darwin and Racism
I came across this article today published by CBN. Paul Strand takes a look at the extremely racist underpinnings of historic Darwinism and it's consequences in society over the past century and a half. From the article:
Darwin's book on human evolution, The Descent of Man, revealed him as what John West calls "a virulent racist.""He did write extensively about how evolution by natural selection creates unequal races, and that in the evolutionary scheme of things, blacks are the closest to apes," he explained. West is the author of Darwin Day in America.
"It's not just residual racism," he added. "He's using his scientific theory as a justification for racism and countless scientists after Darwin latched on to that."
Another resource I recommend is the book Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots, by Ken Ham and Charles Ware. This work has been highly criticized and slandered by countless reviewers (see Amazon.com), but what would you expect? They document the ugly legacy of evolutionary racism and genocide - an aspect of Darwinism which many modern scientists seek to conceal.
A few thoughts and excerpts from the book:
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” - Stephen Jay Gould, a leading evolutionist (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977)Jim Fletcher, upon visiting the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., wrote:
“The railroad car, once you realize what it represents, forces you in...The odd smell - which many visitors say must be the smell of death - can’t be scrubbed away. It shouldn’t be, for it reminds our senses in a visceral way of what happens when men leave God, and malevolent ideas go unchallenged....When Adolph Hitler looked for a ”final solution“ for what he called the ”Jewish problem“ - the fact of the Jews’ existence - he had only to recall what scientists like Ernest Haeckel and liberal theologians embraced: that a purposeless process, known as evolution, had generated all of life’s complexity, including civilization itself. It had done so through a pitiless procedure of the strong eliminating the weak. As the influence of this idea spread, the Bible was increasingly taught as myth.” (from Darwin’s Plantation, pg. 23-4)Evolutionary thought regarding the origin of races, and the timescale of human development, was lived out in men like Hitler, and produced racial genocide such as that which occurred in Australia. Gathering "specimens" (especially fresh ones) was quite lucrative and highly valued by science because it provided evidence for “missing links.” Grave robbing and murder were rampant. The British museum received somewhere around 10,000 specimens, and today the Smithsonian holds the remains of over 15,000 individuals.
"Edward Ramsay, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney for 20 years starting in 1874, was particularly heavily involved. He published a booklet for the museum that gave instructions not only on how to rob graves, but also on how to plug bullet wounds from freshly killed "specimens." Many freelance collectors worked under his guidance. For example, four weeks after Ramsay had requested skulls of Bungee Blacks, a keen young scientist sent him two of them, announcing, "The last of their tribe, had just been shot." (Darwin’s Plantation, pg. 25)
"Today, Darwinism and evolutionary thinking also enable ordinary, respectable professionals - otherwise dedicated to the saving of life - to justify their involvement in the slaughter of millions of unborn human beings, who (like the Aborigines of earlier Darwinian thinking) are also deemed “not yet fully human." (Darwin’s Plantation, pg. 26)All of this is shocking and horrifying, but we must understand that without God, man truly is reduced to a beastly state, and will try to justify brutality under the guise of "science" and "progress."
In a future post, we will examine some of Darwin's personal views regarding slavery (commonly cited as evidence that evolution is not an inherently "racist" worldview), the perception of interracial marriage in the early 1900's, and the Biblical view of race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
