Science & Evolution
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 5/19/14 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
Posted 4/25/14 at 2:35 PM | Barry Bowen
Imagine building a house without a blueprint. Sounds challenging, right? However, many scientists believe that life forms which are more complex than a house resulted from evolutionary processes that do not include planning.
Author Jay Richards provides 8 definitions of the word evolution in his book God and Evolution. Evolution News & Views posts the list here.
Let's take a look at definition #6:
"Blind watchmaker" thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. FULL POST
Posted 4/22/14 at 1:17 PM | American Life League
By Judie Brown
It is imperative in today’s world to have a good understanding of science and the terms frequently used. Today’s commentary explains these terms and helps us understand why some of the old terminology is no longer appropriate.
Today the phrase “from the beginning of his/her biological development” accurately defines when the life of an individual human being begins to exist; the terms “conception” or “fertilization” do not.
We have learned this is so because the fact is that not all human beings begin through sexual means; some are reproduced asexually.
This concept is difficult to explain without a scientific background. I know this firsthand because my vocation is wife, mother, and grandmother, not geneticist. But it can be explained so that anyone gets it.
Follow me for a moment.
Sexual reproduction means “fertilization”—the union of a human sperm with a human egg resulting in the reproduction of a genetically distinct human being. This can happen naturally within a woman’s body, or artificially in an IVF (in vitro fertilization) or ART facility (artificial reproductive technology). FULL POST
Posted 4/21/14 at 6:58 AM | Olabode Ososami
Just reflect on the new possibilities. You want to pay for some groceries and a new technology scans your face instead of your credit card … bringing up information associated with your identity. These technologies will not just serve to criminalize a part of the population, but will defeat any desire for anonymity or freedoms and remotely control access to services based on predetermined profiles.
Should we trust a central electronic policing that can stop an individual’s ability to procure a can of coke at the till … or disallow the entry of an individual into a bus if systems percieve a civil threat? These technologies are quite close in maturing to pilot rollouts and it is still unclear how legislation should regulate an ability to pick you out from anywhere in the globe and the power it confers on those who will manage these capabilities.
The 21st century marked the advent of formal declaration that we can no more pretend to be nations ruled by the authority of the word of God and this theme propelled a new regime of rights to be freed from what was called religious dogmas. It seems, before the mid-century, society will celebrate a new Biometric Surveillance ability to impose a perfection as defined by a government we trust more than the Creator. Will the guardian angels of the 21st century be dispatched through electronic detection machinery capable of a 24 by 7 monitoring, control and restriction of all movements … stopping for example an escaped convict from purchasing a cup of coffee … but with scope for other potential abuses? FULL POST
Posted 4/7/14 at 11:58 PM | CP Blogs
Two university economics professors have authored a peer-reviewed research paper on the role of "information manipulation" - the exaggeration of "climate change" - to advance international environmental policy agreements.
Nanyang Technological University assistant professor Fuhai Hong and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology assistant professor Xiaojian Zhao authored the paper "Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements" for the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. The research paper abstract states the following:
It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.
Climate Depot, Jayson Lusk and others offered critical commentary which resulted in the authors making a public statement to clear up any confusion: "We never advocate lying on climate change." FULL POST