Science & Evolution
Posted 7/9/14 at 11:53 PM | CP Blogs
Interesting fact from the Can Manufacturers Institute:
"In 1972, one pound of aluminum yielded only 21.75 cans. Today, by using less material to make each can, one pound of aluminum makes approximately 33 cans—a 52 percent improvement."
Energy savings from more efficient manufacturing processes have contributed to a drop in energy use. According to the World Bank, carbon dioxide emssions per person have decreased in Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States.
The Cato Institute credits free enterprise as one of the reasons for the decline "because a concern for public opinion coupled with a desire to limit inputs (both of which affect profits) incentivize businesses to reduce emissions."
But the good news doesn't end there. The Environmental Protection Agency reports, "In the United States, since 1990, the management of forests and non-agricultural land has acted as a net sink of CO2, which means that more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, and stored in plants and trees, than is emitted."
Posted 6/28/14 at 11:45 AM | Kyle Beshears
So, there's this article floating around the internet that claims scientists have discovered the first evidence of God's existence. (No need for you anymore, Romans 1...)
The article has been shared almost a quarter-million times on Facebook, where I first came across it. The title was intriguing, so I went ahead and clicked on it. But the more I read, the more things seemed fishy to me. By the time I finished I felt like I was as at a fisherman's wharf.
Why? Because this article is obviously not real. It's completely fake.
Let's count the ways in which this article should raise some red flags:
All this reminds us of one simple lesson – you can't always trust everything you read on the internet, even if you want to. FULL POST
Posted 6/12/14 at 9:31 AM | Brian Wallace
Posted 6/4/14 at 5:51 PM | Barry Bowen
Sometimes I share stories about intelligent design or evolution on my Facebook wall in hopes that my friends will re-evaluate their beliefs on this topic. Instead small arguments usually pop up.
Yesterday I posted the following:
A group of scientists opposed to Darwin's theory have set up a website to support their views. These scientists are not creationists or supporters of intelligent design. Instead they believe in evolution in which natural selection is not the primary driver of biological innovation. (Why am I pointing this out? Many people falsely assume the consensus view is proven beyond doubt. No it isn't. Also, there are atheists opposed to Darwin's theory. This debate goes beyond religion.)
The response was predictable. Several friends were critical of my post. In response to one of their questions, I answered: FULL POST
Posted 6/4/14 at 8:40 AM | Mike Keas
Nobel laureate Francis Crick once warned: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." What Mad Pursuit (1990), page 138. Why is the constant reminder needed? Repeat the mantra often enough, and it might ward off the doubts one naturally has about materialistic theories like neo-Darwinism, when seeing the jolting appearance of design at all levels of nature, from the fine-tuning of the universe for life, to life itself.
A year ago Stephen Meyer published Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. This was a game changer for the evolution debate. Yesterday, Darwin's Doubt just got bigger in its expanded edition, which sports a new 35-page epilogue in which Meyer answers the more substantive challenges to his argument -- from scientists including Charles Marshall, Donald Prothero and Nick Matzke. The epilogue digs deeper into the origin of biological information, the time frame of the Cambrian explosion, cladistic classification methods, and the mystery of the missing ancestors.
Having considered the arguments in Darwin's Doubt, readers will recognize the challenge it offers to traditional evolutionary thinking and perhaps wonder how stalwart defenders of evolutionary theory have responded. FULL POST
Posted 6/3/14 at 11:16 AM | Brian Wallace
Posted 5/21/14 at 11:17 AM | Kyle Beshears
What’s in a day? That’s the big question when it comes to any interpretation of Genesis 1 that is not a literal, plain reading of the text.
Taken at plainest reading, there is little getting around the fact that the author of Genesis recounts the timeframe in which God created the entire universe. Turns out, that’s a week – six days, with a seventh day of rest.
Then, when we add up the genealogies (assuming they don’t skip generations at any point) we are given about 5,700 – 10,000 years of history from Adam to us. This six-day creation with a young earth are central to the idea of Young Earth Creationism (YEC).
Yet, there are many who argue that a plain reading of Genesis 1 actually does the text a disservice. They say that the earth is much older than 10,000 years because of scientific evidence. These folks typically subscribe to Old Earth Creationism (OEC), along with Intelligent Design (ID) and Theistic Evolution (TE). FULL POST
Posted 5/19/14 at 1:46 PM | Christian Post Guest Voices
By Paul Tautges
It’s amazing how much time and energy is spent thinking and talking about environmental issues today. Sadly, most of it is done without any reference to God, who controls every aspect of it. Whether rain or snow, cold or heat, wind or stagnant air, the Lord is the one who continues to uphold it by the mighty power of His Son. It is Jesus Christ who “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3).
What parts of the environment does God control? Over what does His sovereignty reign? Here are 21 ways God is sovereign over the environment. Let this get you started on your own Bible study that is sure to encourage your heart and strengthen your faith.
Jerry Bridges, in his book Trusting God, astutely reminds us that our attitude about the weather reveals our attitude toward God. FULL POST
Posted 5/6/14 at 1:05 PM | Brian Wallace
Posted 5/3/14 at 3:37 PM | Mike Keas
Neil Tyson and the Cosmos TV series crew are to be congratulated for their contribution to science education, but they have also made many unsubstantiated scientific, historical, and theological claims that do not bear up under close scrutiny. I'll focus on Tyson's promotion of naturalistic spirituality.
Tyson proclaims "Our ancestors worshipped the sun. They were far from foolish. It makes good sense to revere the sun and stars because we are their children." Just because all life is built out of elements cooked up in stars, does not mean that reverance for stars like our sun is appropriate. Furthermore, the recipe for life is much more complicated than "just add water" to heavy elements cooked up in suns. FULL POST