Archive for the ‘Evolution/Science’ Category


Militant Materialists Dogmatically Won’t Allow Anyone To Say They’re Dogmatic

August 29, 2013

Rupert Sheldrake gives an excellent speech at TED, in early 2013, only later to have it banned from the TED website by the likes of PZ Meyers, and others. He challenged the modern scientific dogma of militant materialism, and rightly so. The great irony is that after challenging such dogma, he is then dogmatically shut off from being allowed to challenge it! These naturalist high priests of science couldn’t make their bias more apparent.

Here is an excerpt of his speech at TED. He beautifully challenges our modern dogmatic paradigm that science is only science when it assumes philosophical naturalism. In other words, and as he puts it, a purely mechanistic view of the world.

Here is Sheldrake’s insightful response to the whole debacle. In addition, he mentions how militant atheists are the face of science to the public.


Is It 6 Days or 15 Billion Years? Yes.

August 29, 2013

I always enjoy listening to Gerald Schroeder. Yes I know there are holes in every theory, but it’s still interesting to consider what he talks about here. Since time is relative, and the theory of relativity is true, it naturally makes sense to reconcile the Bible and modern science the way he does.


Splitting Scientific Hairs For Bad Reasons

July 10, 2013

split end

You can see the crux of the discussion in the debate at:

36:00 – 1:11:45

I found this to be a very good dialogue because it entails many truths about science, history, and philosophy which you wont hear too often these days. Both Barr and Behe make many great points, and surely have much to agree upon. Barr rightly sees the value of philosophy and theology, as the medeivals did, and is something which is lost today in our broad society. However, I wanted to point out what I believe to be a note-worthy inconsistency in Barr’s reasoning. He argues that wherever there are philosophical implications of science in the science classroom it either ceases to be science, or that such philosophical implications should never be overtly taught in the classroom.

For example, to him ID should not be taught because of the philosophical implications. Now ID does not necessarily imply theism or philosophy. ID says that some things are intelligently caused or better explained by an intelligent cause. This sentence was intelligently caused. It does not necessarily imply theism or philosophy for you to infer this.

Read the rest of this entry ?


Why The Beef With Intelligent Design? (Naturalism Is At Stake)

May 24, 2012

ID became more popularized in 1985 after the publication of Michael Denton’s book “Evolution: A Theory In Crisis”, and in 1999 after the publication of Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”. You can go to my other thread here and read my responses to commonly raised objections to ID. For the purposes of this thread, however, I want to touch on what I see as being the heart of the matter, or the heart of why ID is so controversial. The heart of the matter is that ID poses a threat to philosophical naturalism (matter is all there is), and where there is a threat to philosophical naturalism, there is also believed to be a threat to methodological naturalism (empiricism is the only way to attain true knowledge).

Around 250 years ago it was primarily the influence of philosopher David Hume whom sparked the modern notion that empiricism (observation via the 5 senses) leads to the truth of the world. This has morphed into many assumptions that atheists currently have, ie. the idea that something shouldn’t be believed unless it can by physically demonstrated. It gives the atheist an excuse and means they supposedly are justified in their rejection of God. They fail to consult God as a prime cause (personal starting point for everything). Nor do they wish to acknowledge God through final causes (purpose and order behind creation), but only wish to limit their inquiry of God to Hume’s 5 senses.

Read the rest of this entry ?


Alfred Russel Wallace (Co-Founder of Evolution Turned Theist)

January 25, 2012

Have you ever heard of Alfred Wallace? I haven’t until recently. He was a 19th century biologist, and co-founder of Evolution with Charles Darwin. At the same time, he is essentially the grandfather of ID. Rather than being a theist whom eventually became a naturalist (as Darwin was), he was a naturalist whom eventually became a theist because of his findings in nature and animals. Contrary to animals pointing him towards naturalism like it did with Darwin, they pointed him away from naturalism and towards intelligence and purpose behind the complexities of nature. Unfortunately, we don’t hear Wallace’s opinions today, but only hear about Darwin’s dogmatic naturalism.

Here’s an excerpt from Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways.

Wallace traveled, documented, classified, and researched far more than Darwin.


Why Do You Believe In Biblical Miracles While Rejecting Other Miracles?

December 24, 2011

There’s a debate on youtube where college students debate the topic of miracles. When I find it I’ll post it on here because it’s pertinent to this issue.

Often when there are debates on the topic of miracles this question is raised by the naturalistic atheist, namely, why do Christians only nitpick and choose to believe in the Biblical miracles, yet reject all other miracle claims? Is there a double standard going on? Is the Christian behaving inconsistently here and arbitrarily giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt?

Here’s my quick response to this important question:

First we need to define what we mean by a “miracle”. Usually what the naturalist will mean by this is any phenomenon that is not “natural”. I would argue that this is a bad standard because of the fact that morality and logic are not ordinarily accounted for by “nature” alone. I’d argue that morality is “supernatural” behavior. The fact that you’re even reading this or agree that molesting kids for the fun of it is always morally wrong is proof of this. If what “nature” cannot account for is to be considered a miracle then all humans have miraculous behavior. Philosophical Naturalism can only give us “what is”, not “what should be”, and morality and logic say we shouldn’t do certain things and that we shouldn’t contradict.

Read the rest of this entry ?


Is God Tricking Us With “Naturalism” Or Is “Naturalism” Tricking Us With God?

February 20, 2011

I’ve heard it said so many times in Evolution debates, and always on the part of the Evolutionary naturalist of course, that if there is a God then he must be tricking us because all scientific inquiries just scream unintentional processes and purposelessness. The quintessential example is when someone will say “junk DNA has no purpose, so that proves there’s no intelligent designer”. Luckily, God gave me a brain and I’m able to think way beyond this myopic reasoning unto his glory.

Read the rest of this entry ?