February 22, 2018

Science Does Not Correct Itself

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There is a connotation of science where scientists gather information, make a hypothesis, test it, revise as necessary, it becomes a theory, and eventually a law. Somewhere along the line the thing gets put out to pasture if the facts are recalcitrant. Such a view is not only naïve, but ignores human nature. Scientists are human, after all. 


Scoffing at new material

One expression I have encountered when discussing the origins controversy is that "science corrects itself". Aside from the reification fallacy (science is not a living thing, but scientists may correct themselves), this has been shown to be false — often in areas of technology. Great inventors were laughed at, such as Robert Fulton and the Wright brothers. It was said that if people move too fast (aside from dangerous acceleration, change of direct, and deceleration), they would have physical problems or even die. Scoffers were silenced by results. Some people attribute this ridicule to fear of technology; fear of robots and artificial intelligence may or may not be founded. I reckon it started with the industrial revolution.


Science is does not correct itself, and scientists tend to protect the consensus
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann

Phlogiston

Resistance to change has appeared in other scientific areas. People cling to the consensus; they may not want to "rock the boat". For example, scientists believed that phlogiston was the invisible ingredient that caused things to burn, and some were adhereing to it long after it was disproved.


Death in the hospital

A much more tragic insistence on consensus was with Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis. Women were dying from infections in hospitals after giving birth, and he used excellent critical thinking skills to isolate the problem and present a solution. Although he did not know why having doctors and students wash in a chlorine solution helped, deaths declined markedly. His peers laughed at him, and refused to consider the results, partly because he could not show the cause. His poorly-written treatise also hurt his purpose. He died a broken man, and he was only trying to save lives. Semmelweis was later vindicated by Pasteur and Lister. See "Ignaz Semmelweis: Medical pioneer persecuted for telling the truth" for more.


Blaming the staff

As an aside, the company where I work was having problems with completing data production. The Clock Nazi was blaming the staff for not working hard enough, and for "cheating". When I tried to offer my data processing skills and asked questions, he was blaming the day shift, while the night shift was "working harder". I pointed out that all the indications were of a software problem, since there was a major change about the time the problems began (the IT people at The Company frequently foul up the system). I wanted him to consider several factors, including timing, results, what changes were made, and other things. He insisted on blaming the staff. After he was made to go away, his views continued with his successors, since they prefer to listen to people on the inside instead of listening to the people who actually do the work. We will never know if I was on the right track or not. Admittedly, this is not about science per se, put it is about logic, human nature, and especially pride.


Overpopulation

In 1968, expert on insects Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which put people into a panic. He had projections about the bleak future of mankind due to overpopulation, which were discredited. It has been said that the entire population of the world can fit into New Zealand, New York City, Texas, Alaska...depends on who you read. I'll allow that it would be a mite uncomfortable, though. (I still have a vague memory of Overpopulation, a poster from the 1970s by John Pitre. The land was full of people packed together like sardines, with no land in sight. Probably inspired by Ehrlich. It was hysterics, not reality.) I suspicion that this population excitement was based on leftist political agendas. Even though the concepts were refuted, some people still have a kind of extreme overpopulation concept today. For more about Ehrlich and his book, I recommend the first part of this podcast of The Briefing, free to listen, download, or read the transcript.

Climate changes

For a time, it was thought that the world was going to have another ice age, and that idea persisted until fairly recently. Then it became global warming. Today, we hear most often about global climate change. There are scientists who reject man-made global warming, and the climate alarmists have been show to use faulty data and outright fraud. This fearmongering is based on old Earth and evolutionary concepts, which are based on circular reasoning and preconceptions. These fears are also based on an assumption that God does not exist or is not in control of his creation. 

Climate change is a darling of secularists, leftists, and globalists, who reject rational interpretations of true data. Instead, they prefer the hype and bad information, as climate change activists play on fears and the ignorance of science. Just look at the alarm over carbon dioxide, for example. Don't these clowns know basic science, and how plants need the stuff and give us oxygen in return? 

Evolutionary consensus

I'll end with Darwin's speculations about evolution. Although scientists disagree on so many areas, and although it has been falsified many times, Darwin's true believers crank out rescuing devices left and right. Speculations are passed off as actual scientific research, and there is an overabundance of terrible science and worse logic. Even though the logical conclusion is special creation, the implication that the Creator has told us about himself in his written Word is anathema to secularists. They are proudly rebelling against God, and upholding the erroneous consensus.

In the linked article about Semmelweis, you can see this quote: "The Semmelweis reflex is the informal name coined for the tendency of people to deny new evidence or knowledge that contradicts established beliefs or their worldview. As Semmelweis experienced, long-held ideas can remain entrenched despite potent evidence to the contrary, and people can and do persecute those who challenge the consensus, even when the consensus is wrong." Some folks go haywire and cry, "Katie, bar the door! We don't like the facts!" Evolution is an effort to remove God from the equation and essentially say that we created ourselves. God asked Job if he was going to blame God for his troubles so he could justify himself (Job 40:8), and I see many atheists and evolutionists attempting to do just that.




Pride

I'd like to add another aspect.

I believe that people want to think they're special, smart, right, and so forth. People professing atheism demonize God, the Bible, Christians, creationists, and so forth in what appears to be a pitiful effort to justify their rebellion against God. Scientists refuse to relinquish the consensus in light of new information, and the public follows what "scientists say" when it is convenient. Sure, people detest admitting they're wrong, even at their eternal peril. It all comes down to pride. That was Satan's downfall, and he's been using it to appeal to humanity ever since. God hates undue pride, and we have to rely on him to keep ours in check.

While some scientists make some corrections, a consensus can be firmly entrenched, and some will not change their views because it results in boat rocking as — well as pride problems. In addition, some scientists may have political or atheistic motives to protect the consensus. Science is definitely not self-correcting. Those who know the truth have to lead the cavalry charge up the hill and present the truth.

February 12, 2018

Genetic Tampering, Ethics, and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is an important topic for any day, but even more so for Question Evolution Day. Western civilization has strong Christian roots which have, in turn, effected ethics. That is mighty helpful, since modern science was mostly founded because of the biblical worldview. Unfortunately, with postmodernism, Darwinism, and materialism galloping wild and free, ethical and moral concerns in science are fading into the background. One example is of scientists who want to keep human embryos alive even longer before killing them.


Question Evolution Day cloning genetics CRISPR editing ethics

Other countries do not have such ethical constraints from the get-go. China has been working on the CRISPR genome editing tool, and are "unfettered by rules". While we have ethical concerns, the ChiComs are materialists and force atheism on their people, so we know where their "morality" will lead. 

In addition, China is moving forward with cloning, announcing that they have successfully cloned two monkeys. The concept of cloning gets some folks on the prod, with visions of glass vats full of bubbling water and creatures in various stages of growth. It's not that easy, requiring a great deal more than test tubes and storage units. 

Although "identical" twins are not absolutely identical, they are natural clones. However, there are genetic variations that occur in cloning. If someone had the means and took a notion to clone a hero or a tyrant, when the child became an adult, he or she could have a far different personality than that of the source. Like gene editing, cloning is also an area where people have wrestled with ethical questions. At the moment, unethical secularists seem to be persuading people to their point of view.

Do we want people with a materialistic worldview in charge of such potentially beneficial or destructive ideas as cloning and genome editing? The Western world is becoming increasingly secularized, while places like China don't pay ethics no nevermind. Atheism is enforced, even though it is irrational and incoherent, and science is not possible in a consistent atheistic worldview.

Christians who believe the Bible know that we were created in God's image, and humans have value and dignity. The idea of cloning humans should be alarming to us, as well as the probabilities of increasing eugenics and abortion. Hopefully, we can present the biblical creation worldview and supporting evidence so people will begin to question evolution. They need to see that life has purpose and value, and we are not just cosmic and biological accidents. People also need to see that evidence supporting special creation and refuting evolution is largely withheld by secularists. Ultimately, we hope to see them repent and trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation.

As usual, I have some items that I'd like to share with you. These are my main sources and inspirations for this article. First is from The Briefing Podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler. Free to read the transcript, listen online or download, click here. Second, "Monkeying around with cloning". I hope you'll listen and or read them. Remember, we are created beings, not accidents of materialistic processes.

January 10, 2018

Archaeology Supports the Bible

People who doubt the authenticity of the Bible, whether unbelievers or liberal "Christians", will occasionally appeal to archaeology in their attempts to reject God's Word and continue riding the owlhoot trail. However, they are showing massive ignorance as well as relying on fallacious reasoning. Although the Christian's faith is based on the Word of God, there is evidence for our beliefs. Maybe I'm unusual, but I actually found the material I rounded up and presented below to be rather exciting.


Archaeology supports the Bible, history, and the Bible's authors
Credit: Pixabay / Heather Truett
Archaeology is a newer science when compared to some of the more established disciplines. The subject matter requires careful excavation of unoccupied areas. This is a huge reason that Jerusalem and other areas are left alone, as not only do people live there, but buildings are erected on much older foundations. 

When some people claim that the Bible is historically inaccurate because certain things have not been discovered by archaeologists, they are committing a passel of fallacies. For one thing, they conveniently overlook the fact that archaeologists have verified many accounts in the Bible, and other historical documents have supported it as well. Also, if something has not been found, that proves nothing and is often times a fallacious argument from silence. Two additional areas of bad reasoning to keep an eye out for include arguing from incomplete or suppressed evidence, personal preference. Gotta watch out for tricky disbelievers, they suppress the truth and try to justify their rebellion against God (Rom. 1:18-23).

Scoffers are also arguing from presuppositions; they are biased against the Bible from the get-go. Add to that some arbitrary assertions, erroneous interpretations of other historical records, and you have people acting like evolutionists — they can't find evidence because they already expect the Bible to be wrong. 

Also, a frequent trick from atheists and liberal "Christians" is to try and put Bible-believers on the defensive. This includes utilization of the genetic fallacy, rejecting material they don't cotton to. They want evidence for the Bible from outside it, showing their ignorance again of what all the Bible entails. Atheists and other unbelievers make assertions with a "prove me wrong" attitude, but we need to call them out on their fallacies and have them back up their claims — and not just with the confirmation bias of, "I found a liberal scholar who agrees with my preconceptions" kind of thing.

Another area of bad thinking I need to mention is prejudicial conjecture. That's when someone has an uninformed, biased opinion and needs to express it. Atheists do this frequently, especially about biblical creationists. 

Now we come to some things that I really hope you'll examine, and mayhaps file away for when you need information on these examples of archaeology supporting the Bible.
Was the Bible written by men who were inspired by God or was it written by men who were telling tall tales, motivational stories, or trying to deceive in order to gain something for themselves? Were the authors of the books of the Bible who they claim to be? Because if they were not then we have a problem, how did men who were either delusional or deceptive write a book that, apart from authorship, contains evidences of divine origins? That is, how did writers who were lying or deceived get the details correct? That is one overall evidence that the Bible writers were authentic.
It is not possible to actually confirm that any particular individual wrote a book of the Bible, apart from what the Bible says and what has been passed down from tradition. The same is true for all ancient manuscripts. There are no signatures to compare, no fingerprints, just copies of what they wrote that have been passed down through the centuries.  What we have now is archeological evidence and old manuscripts.
To finish reading this first article, click on "Who Wrote the Books of the Bible". Then I have some more material below.

The above article focused on the authors of the Bible, and this next one goes into some fascinating detail on locations in the Bible. It's by an archaeologist, Dr. Bryant Wood.
As our Western culture increasingly abandons all semblance of Christianity, more and more people think the Bible is just a bunch of myths. . . . The short answer is encouraging. Archaeologists have found evidence that supports the Bible, but many times the evidence is ignored because of preconceptions about the Bible’s historicity, or their dates or places are wrong for the biblical events. The longer answer is even more exciting. Any supposed contradictions turn out to be human errors, not Bible errors. Consider five of the most common examples.
To read the rest or download the MP3 version, click on "Digging Past the Doubts". Also, I recommend this short article discussing the importance of how the Bible is historically accurate, and how it applies to our theology, "Genesis is both History and Theology".  



December 12, 2017

Rights for Robots?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

So, some folks over yonder in the European Union think that robots should have rights, as they may develop self-awareness. Have they been smoking wacky tobaccy? This opens up a passel of problems from the get-go. First, they need to define robot. Some task-saving devices are called robots, so a definition for a robot may need certain advanced capabilities. Seems mighty subjective, though. Does it have to look human? Suppose "lower" robots decided they were discriminated against. It happened with blacks, Jews, and others who were considered less than human by other humans, you know.


Materialistic self-refuting ideas of giving rights to robots in case they become self-aware, which is impossible

Can you imagine the social justice warriors pushing for legislation to protect robots? Then we have Mr. Gordons, who refers to humans as "meat machines". Imagine this scene: a robot complains to a supervisor that it does not like to be referred to as a "robot", but prefers the title of electronic person. Also, a complain was filed because the term human resources is offensive.

Of course, such thinking that robots could become self-aware is from a materialistic worldview. Humans, critters, the universe — all are the products of the Creator, who is described in the Bible. In addition, the self-awareness concept for machines implies that they have souls, which is contrary to the thinking of most empiricists, but rationalists may find it acceptable. Naturalists, by nature (heh!) deny the existence of God, spirits, the soul, and so on, but yet have searched for the soul. Very inconsistent.

A further example of atheistic incoherence is that the naturalist denies God our Creator and Redeemer, but as I mentioned, searches for the soul in the body. They think we are the products of particles-to-programmer evolution, but admit that a robot — sorry, I mean electronic person — is clearly the product of design. (Not a heap of a lot of good when the power supply is exhausted.) Many of these are patterned after what is found in nature, products of the Master Engineer. And no electronic device, semi-sentient or not, is anywhere near as complex as a human. I have said that my current employers do not want people, they want robots. That would backfire if robots get rights.

We are created in the image of God, and we are using our intelligently-engineered minds to build things. A machine cannot have a soul, sorry to disappoint some folks. There was a mediocre, violent movie in 1980 called Saturn 3. Spoiler: the killer robot was unable to grasp the concept of self-sacrifice. People do it all the time. In fact, God became a man, Jesus, and sacrificed himself for us. We need to repent and receive him as Lord. The robot in the movie would certainly be unable to comprehend this, and no man-made machine would be able to, either. In fact, too many proud humans are unable (or unwilling) to humble themselves and repent, receiving the sacrifice, Resurrection, and eternal life offered through Jesus.

This article was inspired by "Should robots have rights?" I highly recommend it.



November 20, 2017

Congress, Atheism, and Reason

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Jared Huffman, a Democrat Congressman from California, recently "came out" as a Humanist. There is no appreciable difference between Humanists and atheists, though some theists call identify as Humanists because they have a low view of the Bible and elevate humans to the highest priority. Huffman does not go on record as endorsing atheism, but says he does not believe in God. He seems to be politically timid, keeping mum about his beliefs for years (atheists generally do not get elected). He felt he had to finally admit his views.

The Democrat party has a disdain for God and the Bible, and Huffman believes in homosexual "rights", he is pro-abortion, and just what you'd expect from a leftist in general. Identifying as a Humanist, or atheist (or maybe he'll change to agnostic), should fit in well with the current political climate.

I want to interject something here. Atheists are materialists, rejecting God and the supernatural (except for those who identify as atheists but still believe in such things, go figure) and most are pro-abortion. It seems to be that they are amazingly inconsistent by supporting abortion if this is the only life anyone has. Wouldn't it be consistent for atheists as a whole to be vehemently pro-life instead of denying the unborn a chance at living? Just a thought.

As we have seen here many times, professing atheists are appallingly bad at using logic, but claim to be the purveyors of reason. Some samples of Huffman's comments help illustrate what I mean. First, "...I don’t believe my religion is all that important to the people I represent..." Sounds like an off the cuff remark, not something that has been communicated to him by all those people. It is also a hasty generalization, such as used when saying that all 8,000+ of those who "Like" The Question Evolution Project are hateful bigots."

...and I think there’s too much religion in politics." Really? Politics is made up of people, it is not a monolith, such as some people make of science. People have foibles, views, biases, altruism, presuppositions — and religious beliefs. Atheists (and so-called Humanists) are on a secularist jihad to remove any semblance of Christianity from American society. Huffman's constituents, if there are any Christians left in the area he represents, should be alarmed.

Also note this remark in the leftist Washington Post“On Thursday, he will release a statement saying he is a Humanist, a loose philosophy based on the idea that humans should work to improve society and live ethically, guided by reason, not necessarily by anything supernatural.” This is not only a question-begging epithet (subtly saying that Humanists/atheists use "reason" and people who believe in God reject reason), but it is also poisoning the well and manipulating emotions: you don't want to admit that you're a theist and have people think you're stupid, unlike The Mighty Atheist™, do you?

Atheism is illogical, inconsistent, and irrational, and it lacks the necessary preconditions of human experience. Those preconditions are only found in the biblical worldview, beginning with creation. If Jared Huffman decides to say he's an agnostic, well, that worldview is also lacking in reason. This tinhorn is doing the politician thing. Such doubletalk is typical of atheists, to say something without coming out and being direct so he cannot be pinned down.

Dr. Albert Mohler has an insightful analysis of the Jared Huffman situation in The Briefing. It's free to download, listen online, or read the transcript. I hope you will do so, just click on "The Briefing 11-14-17".



November 7, 2017

Grief and Pain from the Texas Shooter

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article contains a time-sensitive link that may expire soon, at which point, it will be deleted.

The murders of people in Sutherland Springs, Texas, has stirred many emotions. Grief, pain, anger, and others. It has also raised questions about how a loving God could allow this, what were the motives, and just...why? We will never have all the answers tied up in a neat package. We can find some of them.


Christians have hope and comfort despite grief such as caused by Kelley the atheist in Sutherland, Texas
Credit: Pixabay / MissSuss
At this writing, the motives are not known. I'm not going to varnish this, we already know that the killer was a seriously disturbed, violent atheist. Some are saying the motive was because of a domestic situation, others say "unknown" and "uncertain". The rampage may have been far worse if the shooter was not interrupted by the heroic actions of Stephen Willeford. If the motive was due to hatred of his mother-in-law, he could have killed only her elsewhere. The fact that he did this rampage during a church worship service speaks volumes about his moral fiber, and of society today.

Christians have been asking us to pray for the families and the community. (Of course, the leftist governor of New York is politicizing and ridiculing prayer, but we seen many times that the left has disdain for Bible believers.) Still, people are hurting. We can pray that they are comforted and that their faith remains strong. God is still on his throne, and there will be healing and ultimate Judgement. Kelley reportedly killed himself after the massacre, but his eternal problems are just beginning.

The day after the massacre, Ken Ham wrote a short post , "We Now Grieve with a Texas Church". This contains two free downloads: an e-book and a video in two parts. Although I have not read and watched the items, I can say that the process was easy. I hope they will help those who are hurting and have questions.

I'm going to take us on a side trail before I conclude this article.

The killer was an atheist. Not only that, but he apparently knew the truth of God's Word and rejected in. Someone will undoubtedly object, "There is no evidence that he did his killing in the name of atheism!", or some such. A similar objection is raised when Christians point out that the greatest mass murderers were either atheists, Darwinists, or both, bringing to mind what I call the "No True Atheist Fallacy".

Whether a proclamation of atheism was made or not, Kelley and other atheists have a faulty moral compass — they have no consistent, ultimate standard of morality. Indeed, there was really nothing of significance to stop Kelley, Breivik, McVeigh, Dahmer, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others from killing people. I have insisted for some time now that atheists are becoming more strident and angry, and expect that their violence will only increase. Their time is short, and the final Judgement is coming.

When I posted this link about the atheist killer at The Question Evolution Project, a venomous atheopath shared the post to his own page for his ongoing purpose of ridicule. Note his comment, which I highlighted in yellow (click for larger, if needed):



This is outrageous on several levels, and illustrates several scriptural truths (John 8:44, 2 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 2:14). First, not the slightest indication of remorse for the shooting, nor regret that it was done by one of his own kind. Second, people are responsible for their own actions (a concept that leftists do not seem to realize any longer — and most atheists are leftists, by the way). Third, what is the "religious right"? It is a vague phrase used to elicit fear and anger by those who wish to manipulate others who are driven by emotion instead of reason. Fourth, it is a red herring fallacy, a distraction. Fifth, atheists do not trust other atheists. EDIT: To see how this reprobate proved me right, click here.

I do not say this lightly, especially since the term is far overused today, but based on that comment and others this guy has made: he is evil. Not as bad as Kelley, but it would not surprise me in the least to learn that he approves of the murders. Yes, I've seen professing atheists applaud the deaths of Christians.

Dr. Albert Mohler said:
In one very important dimension, this demonstrates why the Christian worldview is so utterly different than every other worldview. Atheism, for instance, must affirm that, at its base, human life is merely a series of accidents. There is no Creator, so there is no human being made in the Creator’s image. Of course atheists would clearly classify this murderous attack in Sutherland Springs, Texas, as evil, but they have no real ability to understand or to embrace the notion of evil with any coherence. Evil is essentially a theological category.
When an atheist does bother to say something is evil, he or she is inadvertently standing on the Christian worldview! Atheism has no consistent moral standard, and is irrational. No wonder they have to use our ultimate standard.

Now we're back to the main trail, and I will conclude this article.

There is hope and comfort in Jesus. Dr. Albert Mohler has an excellent article (excerpted above) that I hope you will read. Click on "Tragedy in Texas: Christian Testimony in the Face of Evil". We have hope and comfort. Those who deny God have no hope, but only a terrifying eternal destiny unless they repent.



November 5, 2017

Leftist Science Industry Rejects Research On Motherhood

Science is supposed to be a search for knowledge, with scientists considering evidence, proposing hypotheses, then running them up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes them. When ideas are refuted, they accept the changes and try something else. Problem is, that scenario is fictitious. (For that matter, when people claim that "science has proved" something are showing their ignorance of the philosophy and methodology of science.) Scientists, medical doctors, and others have refuted consensus views and been resisted. For example, Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that the mortality rate of women giving birth could be drastically reduced with antiseptics, but he was ignored by the establishment.

Scientific research supports the bond between mothers and children, but leftists reject it
Sara and Her Mother with the Baby, Mary Cassat, 1901
Scientists and the secular scientific establishment seem to be increasingly biased nowadays, especially to viewpoints propagated by leftists. Something that is in opposition to the Bible is celebrated, even when they try to slap leather with God and shoot themselves in the foot with fake science. A report of what Bible believers already knew, that daughters need their fathers, was touted as a new scientific finding.

Erica Komisar is a Jewish psychoanalyst who works in Manhattan, New York. She presented some scientific work about the bond between mothers and children, and how it continues after birth. He research was resisted. Why? She's not a professing Christian or a biblical creationist (secularists and leftists detest us). I suspicion that this may give some doubt to the sacrament of abortion, which is sacred among leftists and other secularists. Indeed, the pseudoscience of evolution is used to give abortion is given "scientific" credence.

Dr. Albert Mohler inspired me to write the above linked post on fathers and daughters, and he put a burr under my saddle to write this post as well. Now I'm going to send you to his podcast, The Briefing, which is free to listen online, download, or read the transcript. It follows his discussion on the Manhattan terrorist attack, third item down. Look for "Inconvenient science: Secular left refuses to acknowledge research on motherhood".


Subscribe in a reader