An Overview
Thank you! We, as Christian Americans, must publicly and graciously stand up for our Biblical beliefs, such as: (1) marriage is of two biologically different genders (male and female) Genesis, (2) the killing of a child (whether identified as fetus or baby) is simply a choice to kill a growing human being, which is unambiguously contrary to God’s word, Matt. 19:16-22 and (3) obedience to the law is a requirement of every citizen (and non-citizens) that wishes to be citizens. (Romans13). Your thoughts?
Daniel
Daniel, it seems so simple when you put it that way.
You Tell Me That It’s Evolution . . .
My wife and I discovered Blog & Mablog a few months ago. It’s been a delight. I did feel compelled to make a comment on this post because I believe that, though it be NQN, perhaps some qualifying arguments could have been included rather than resorting to calling Darwinism profoundly stupid without a clear explanation. If agitation or humiliation of Darwinians is the goal (so it seemed by the tone, which I love by the way) do you think you gain any ground by simply laughing at it? I’m not convinced you do. I think your position can work (cf. Raymond Tallis), I’d love to see follow up the coaxing by pulling a few punches. Thanks.
Jordan
Jordan, let me qualify it here. My main focus here was not to call Darwinians names, but rather to get non-Darwinian Christians to stop ceding the respectability point in the privacy of their own heads.
But Doug, you’re obviously unaware of theistic evolution! It allows us to continue to hold our heads up in polite company, as well as to send our kids off to university without worrying as to whether they will lose their faith while there due to the challenge of materialism. We just cause them to question it and likely lose it BEFORE they go, since the biblical witness on origins (including Jesus’ views on it) is mere myth.
Jim
Jim, right. Why leave the task of sowing the seeds of unbelief to the unbelievers? They might be rude in how they do it.
Bravo.
Douglas
Douglas, thanks.
To pile on to the longest paragraph of your “Evolution as an Uncommonly Silly Idea” post: The LORD: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? (Job 38:2-4) Job (as a stand in for any sane person): “Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further” (40:4-5). “Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (42:6).
Bryan
Bryan, amen and amen.
On evolution, Dr Jason Lisle posits that mathematics is where evolution always exposes itself as foolish. Here’s the relevant clip, but the larger, longer presentation is fascinating, as well. This is why some are attacking mathematics on the basis of identity politics. There’s your fusion of Marxism and Darwinism. “I was told there would be free books” . . . is this a Milton reference? Please register my approval with the captain of the pirate ship!
Ron
Ron, thanks for the links. And no, not a conscious Milton reference.
I sympathize with what you are saying. And when it comes to biology, I agree that evolution as a theory has ENORMOUS problems. Enormous doesn’t begin to cover it. But conservative Christians don’t help their cause one iota by insisting: 1) Genesis 1 & 2 are literal 2) Genesis 1 & 2 must prescribe a young-earth view where the universe is between 5,000-10,000 years old. Such a view is as ridiculous as those who hold fast to evolution as a tenet of faith. Young earth creationism is absurd nonsense UNLESS one is going to say that God created the universe already looking old. But most young earth creationists I meet won’t even admit that it looks old. Which immediately shuts down all discussion. Which is insane.
Jeff
Jeff, there are many issues here, but let me just address one of them. We want to be careful with the argument that the world looks old, when we don’t have a-known-to-be young earth to set beside it for comparison’s sake. What would a 6,000 year-old earth look like? Put another way, I think it is reasonable to argue that the appearance of antiquity of the rocks we are looking at is a paradigm projection. Couple this with the fact that the terrain around Mt. St. Helens looks as old as you might want it to be . . . and I am older than it is.
Shepherding the Wind
A study of Ecclesiastes can be life-changing. It was for me and started with Joy At The End Of The Tether. This book is so worth the read. Then I would recommend following that up with Jeffery Meyers, A Table In The Mist. It will give you a handle on why life is beautiful and worth living.
DC
DC, thanks. JATEOTT was originally a series of sermons at Christ Church, and I believe that was actually a pivotal moment in the life of congregation.
November Has Been a Fun Month
Man, I am thoroughly enjoying this No Quarter November! It is like a breath of fresh air or a cold drink on a hot day to hear someone calling out the fact that the Emperor has no clothes on in a simple and articulate voice.
Anton
Anton, thanks.
On a commercial break during college football this Saturday I saw a pair of new commercials that made me realize something new about you, Doug. First the commercials: 1. A little girl is at home alone with her burly good looking father. The phone rings. The girl answers the phone and it’s her mother in a world away deployed with the United States military. The dad runs over and smiles at his daughter while they talk to mommy off fighting a war in a distant land. 2. Jared’s Diamond shop (or whatever they called it) ran an ad for engagement rings. First up two men are on a stage singing when one leaves only to be called back up and proposed to by his boyfriend. Next up are a man and woman at a party when the narrator says “For when you ask him!” and then the woman gets on a knee and proposes to the man. He, of course, puts his hands to his face in shock and joy! “What a lucky gal I am!” he seems to be saying. Now for my realization: I think you’ve been far too easy on our culture. Think we can find a rich donor to sponsor a Super Bowl commercial where you sit on a burning couch and read Romans 1?
TF
TF, I am afraid the existing authorities would not allow us to spend our rich donor’s money in such a hateful way.
I am from the Dominican Republic, but I spent almost 10 years (2007-2016 from 18 years old old to 27 years old) in the States between Logan, Utah (yeah), Rochester, New York, and Dover, New Hampshire for bachelor of science in Computer Science, master of science in the same field, and working as software developer in Liberty Mutual, respectively in those cities. I returned to the Dominican Republic two years ago as part of a two-years-home-residency requirement. I have been impacted by your ministry and work a lot, and I appreciated it, and to be honest, I will be very willing, interested, and open to collaborate, work and/or volunteer for you even if it is remotely. I think this article like many others and your books (plus other works) are very powerful, gold, and liberating. Another good one from you. Praise God. This No Quarter November series are fire, and I love the part about the free books. That Rules for the Reformers is a great blessing. If I had the permission, I would love translating this one into Spanish and even some of your other works that you allow, but at least this one . . . or at least bring the suggestion for you to do it. Thanks very much!! God bless you!!
Eliot
Eliot, thank you. A number of Canon titles have been translated into various languages, and so you could certainly contact them with a proposal.
I have been hammered by Federal Husband. Smashed into a thousand little pieces and I have just begun to know what it means to be a husband and a father. I finally had to throw away my pen due to excessive underlining and margin notes. This book has been a great blessing to my family, especially my wife as I love her as Christ loved the Church and laid down His life for her. My children have also been blessed as I have begun to catechize them. I plan on sending these books as gifts to most of my family and friends. Also we are loving “No Quarter November.” It stings . . . Keep it up. Thanks,
Santos
Santos, thank you. Glad you found the book helpful. Thus far in November, we have given away over 12K titles. Hope they all find responsive readers. Thanks for reading with an eye on application.
Classical Paganism?
The problem with classical education is that it’s based on the Greek model and the Greeks were completely corrupt and pagan. Why would we want to emulate a system designed to raise pagans?
Lance
Lance, for the same reasons that God choose the Greek language to give us the New Testament. The wild olive branches were no good growing where they were growing, but when they were grafted into the Abrahamic root, the results were just what God wanted. He wanted that ex-pagan tang in His olive oil.
What Race Issue?
“Presbyterians and Woke Baptists” & “Alt-Righty Then” From an SBCer living off the continent . . . show me where we have gone down that path that got us ‘sunk’ on race. You’ve given explicit examples of the mainline issues yet not about the SBC race issue you refer to. Are you referring to your post: “Alt-Righty Then?” More specifically, you wrote there about the alt-right & the SBC, that, “. . . There would be an uproar because, while the theology was righteous, there would be legitimate suspicion that there was a surreptitious (political) agenda in the selectivity of the identified villains. And so there would be. And this is why, when representatives of Jesus Christ are denouncing hateful bigotries, and they take it upon themselves to repudiate what star-bellied sneetches have done to the non-star-bellied sneetches, they must also take care to address any problems that have run the other way. This must all be done at the same time. Otherwise, the church is being played. In the New Testament, the Jews have to love and accept the Gentiles, and the Gentiles also have to love and accept the Jews. Everybody does this, and all at the same time. True communion at the Table of Christ must run in every direction. No one is permitted to come with any grievances in hand. All of us must set all of them down.” Your excellent point well taken, but I don’t see how the SBC is “sunk” if this is what you are referring to. If our leadership and church members are finally coming around to figuring out how to publicly address systemic race issues in our communities and even in our churches, can’t we hail that is a “win-win” v. call it a full out fail for not having gone far enough? I’m game with Thabiti A and others @TGC, etc. who are helping the greater Evangelical Christian community deal with these issues, yet I wouldn’t go far as to say the SBC is sunk over this issue. We SB’s sure are not all kosher on these issues, yet just not sure how the SBC got lumped into the same sentence, let alone post, as those who have a dim view of Scripture. #NotGettingUrPoint P.S. Love the conversation starter of lighting the coach on fire! Thanks for being willing to “Go There” on these and other issues.
Bill
Bill, my point is not that the SBC has not gone far enough with critical race theory, it is that they have accommodated far too much of it already. And yes, the “Alt-Righty” post is about precisely this issue.
I was hoping to hear a little more commentary on how the two large evangelical denominations are going metaphorically south. I’ve been to a good seminary of one of them and the pastoral ministry class was rife with references to standing with Black Lives Matter, belief in corporate guilt regardless of who your ancestors were but based on skin color, and the apparently agreed upon notion among thought leaders that the word “evangelical” no longer has meaning because so many voted for Trump. I suppose that is more of a comment than a question, and I guess I want to encourage you to keep shining a light on this. It can be a real bait and switch when one attends a ministry with a conservative reputation only to find out after many years and thousands of dollars later that Marxism is readily endorsed as consistent with Evangelical belief. Of course it’s not always as obvious as when I was at Wheaton and they handed us Marxist authors for assignments. One time I asked concertedly “this sounds a little bit like liberation theology” to which the professor responded “of course, he was one of the founders of it.”
Luken
Luken, thanks. I intend to continue to pursue all of this. It is really bad out there.
The USS Arizona Was Already on the Bottom
Forgive me if I sound a bit pedantic, however I feel compelled to observe that USS Arizona blew apart and sank to the bottom by 0819, during the first wave of the attack. There would have been no sailors (alive) on her at all during the third wave—the survivors having long abandoned—to have made any insightful observations about the attack.
Daniel
Daniel, point taken, and yes, a bit pedantic. But at least I will never make that mistake again.
Optimillennialism
Re: “And Which Is Where We Are Headed” On tyranny and consolidated, arbitrary power: We premillennialists have been saying for a long time that this is coming to a world order near you. What’s your post-mill take on the same subject?
Steve
Steve, I believe the globalists really want to do everything the premills imagine, and worse. It is just that I believe two basic things about it. In the long run, stupidity never works and, also in the long run, God’s promises are always fulfilled, and they will fill the face of the earth with fruit.
These Things Happen
We currently are members of a large reformed Baptist Church “somewhere in North America,” in the vein of John Piper. Your daughter Rachel and you have converted me (and my husband) to paedo-baptism. What do we do now? We haven’t told our pastors or any small group families, though I want to tell everyone because it makes so much sense!!! We have __ young kids. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church around us is not favorable towards you . . .? The What Have You podcast has been such a blessing to me, your daughters are so amazing! We are loving our first year of classical school with our first grader! Thanks for your ministry . . . Can my name be kept anonymous if you answer publicly?
Suzy Q
Sure, “Suzy,” and thanks for the kind words. I wish I could be more of a practical help. But God knows your circumstances, having placed you in them, and He knows who the like-minded people are in your area. Start praying that He would introduce you.
A Few Pointed Education Questions
Here are a couple questions I’d like you to tackle if you would please. 1. Do you think all Christian schools are created equal? Furthermore, do you think all homeschooling families or classical Christian school (or rather that thing that we are pulling kids towards if we pull them out of public school) are created equal? 2. The other side of the last question. Do you think all public schools are created equal? 3. The big problem I have with your thoughts on this matter is that in your desire to let the biblical principles of educating children speak to your audience you have created a binary choice that does not exist. Unfortunately, it just isn’t enough for me to hear you say “public school bad and Christian school good” anymore. I am genuinely curious of how you deal with these questions if you so wish to tackle them.
James
James, no, I certainly do not believe that all good choices are equally good. Nor do I believe that all bad choices are equally bad. Nor are all foolish parents equally foolish. And for those parents who—in this climate, in these days—enroll their children in government schools, not all vain hopes are equally vain.
And Another Thing
Hi, Mr. Wilson mentions in his article “The Sexdollification of Western Women” that he is going to address the analogous problem that men in the West have; can you send that article to me? Thanks
Ryan
Ryan, sorry. I don’t think I ever got around to that specifically.
“…perhaps some qualifying arguments could have been included rather than resorting to calling Darwinism profoundly stupid without a clear explanation.”
Don’t hold your breath. “Darwinism is stupid” is Wilson’s entire “argument” on this subject, he knows nothing and cares nothing about the facts. It’s a Trumpish maneuver, intended to signal dominance and disrespect rather than to understand and inform.
Matt, please regale us with the “argument” you wish to forward. It’s a bit ironic that you assert an Ad hominem fallacy by calling it Trumpish, disrespectful and uninformed.
Particularly, explain evolution in light of mathematics. Did it exist prior to human minds, how has it changed, and how do those changes add survival value to the change agents?
If you truly want an argument, go back to the series where Pastor Wilson blogged an evolution book chapter-by-chapter. After most of those chapters I commented listing all the scientific, mathematic, and logical mistakes he had made in that day’s entry. I don’t recall him responding.
He has repeatedly made very elementary errors that suggest that either he doesn’t understand the basic science or that he doesn’t expect his readers to.
Let’s just say that Jonathan’s memory of events wouldn’t pass scientific muster.
But Christians are implored not to answer a fool according to his folly, lest we becoming like him, darkened in our understanding. Thus, when presented with the “facts” that “cows are related to whales,” or “men came from monkeys,” or “there is no God,” there remains only one proper response–a big, long belly laugh. For those who have eyes to see, what you see is that Darwinism really is profoundly stooopid.
Nice job on the three “o’s”! ????
That’s the tactic, yes.
You can look at the DNA and see that cows and whales share an enormous amount of it. you can look at aspects of the bone structure, the muscle structure, the nerve structure, in fact every organ system in the body and see that there are clearly numerous relations between them. So it is obvious that cows are “related” to whales in some sense. At the very least you have to admit that God made cows and whales to be far, far more alike to each other in every way than he made, say, cows and fish, or whales and… Read more »
Matt wrote: Don’t hold your breath. “Darwinism is stupid” is Wilson’s entire “argument” on this subject, he knows nothing and cares nothing about the facts. Judging from this display, Matt will have no principled objection against the use of empty ad hominem assertions. Noted. Matt seems oblivious to the greater problem that evolutionism has transitioned almost completely to its authoritarian phase. As even Matt reveals, it’s not about a scrappy debate over the facts any more. Too much is at stake. It’s about raw institutional power and censoring of public opposition. The disciples of evolution have been successfully catechized and… Read more »
Katecho, while 100% of what you say is true, as is typically the case, I suspect you’re being taken for a ride. My first instinct is that this is a trolling attempt, not a real argument.
I agree entirely that creationism is not respected in the sciences.
Matt wrote: I agree entirely that creationism is not respected in the sciences. Matt is openly content with his double-standard when he calls for respect and deference from us creationists. Yet he wants to wrap Trump’s name around Wilson’s neck? The irony. Trolls will troll, I guess. Look, Wilson is not even in a position of institutional power to demagogue on this issue like the evolutionists are, and have been for decades. Evolutionists not only disrespect biblical creation theory, they actively and aggressively censor it. Hypocritically, demagogues like Dawkins are free to brainstorm about how DNA could be found to… Read more »
This victimhood mentality is really out of control. Young earth creationists aren’t agressively censored in the sciences. They often don’t get published and don’t get teaching gigs at legitimite research universities because those things require a demonstrated ability to follow the scientific method and a competent grasp of the field. Note that a YEC like Dr. Leonard Brand gets his YEC work published in prestigious journals (geology, journal of taphonomy, paleogeography, etc.) because he actually does research. He preregisters a hypothesis, conducts field work in a rigorous manner and represent his results honestly. Many geologists disagree with his conclusions, but… Read more »
I can’t speak for YEC, but those who’ve gone against the mainstream on issues like global warming have faced some ugly opposition: http://www.independentscientist.com/ The “greens” have not sat back. One person who submitted her signature by fax, claiming to be a Ph. D in Boston, gave the name Jerry Halliwell. As soon as it was published on the Website, Ozone Action announced at a congressional hearing that the petition was fraudulent: “Halliwell” was the real name of a rock group member. The false identity had been supplied deliberately, in an attempt to delegitimize the entire list. Senator John Kerry of… Read more »
Most of that is playing out in the press and in popular opinion. People like Judith Curry, Craig Idso, and Richard Lindzen have been able to keep their academic appointments and contine to publish papers without being “censored.” It should also be noted that researchers are often rancorous and even childish about any given theory. See the nasty feud between the Alvarez and Keller faction over the K-Pg extinction event or the controversy over the channelled scablands between Harlen Bretz and most of the geology establishment. However, there are always plenty of scientists ailling to challenge even the most “sacred”… Read more »
Fair enough. but wouldn’t you say that going against core beliefs of academia, the MSM, pop culture, etc., is a much tougher road? What if a researcher discovered something that was outright damning for man-made climate change or being “born gay”? Wouldn’t he face much more opposition than, say, if he discovered something revolutionary about how rats resist disease? Just look at the politics of the APA removing homosexuality as a mental disorder way back in 1973.
Yeah, public/political sentiment ties in – the ever growing campus PC corp (diversity officers and the like) is also becoming a big problem. But if you read studies in, say, genetics journals they are decidedly unwoke so the influence isn’t too bad yet. I doubt any serious researcher believes people “born gay,” at least not in the strong deterministic way (that is for the sociologists, psychologists, and queer theorists).
For a look at how journals can and should foster debate on politically charged issues look at (retired MIT and Havard faculty) Carl Wunsh’s review paper / essay on the paleocean.
https://hwpi.harvard.edu/carlwunsch/publications/towards-understanding-paleocean
This is paper was requested by the journal.
I’m not sure that demosthenes1d grasps where the burden lies on the question of demagoguery and censorship against creation theory. It’s not sufficient for him to name a few creationists who have managed to “keep their academic appointments and continue to publish papers” without being censored or fired. If that’s all he can do, he has made our case for us. How many of those published papers have any actual creationist content? Does demosthenes1d begin to see the problem? I didn’t think any Christians still seriously questioned the secular and evolutionary bias and suppression of ideas taking place in academia,… Read more »
demosthenes1d wrote: Most of that is playing out in the press and in popular opinion. People like Judith Curry, Craig Idso, and Richard Lindzen have been able to keep their academic appointments and contine to publish papers without being “censored.” Ironically, Judith Curry is retired, and she cited the “CRAZINESS in the field of climate science” as one of her reasons for stepping down. She regards the current atmosphere as poisonous and no longer wanted to deal with the ongoing harassment. Upon retiring, she wrote: Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain… Read more »
demosthenes1d wrote: Most of that is playing out in the press and in popular opinion. But curiously not playing out in the sacred (and safe) spaces of the science classrooms. What voices of dissent can be heard there? The students’ minds are too impressionable, or something. Demosthenes1d still can’t see the demagoguery and regulatory capture in this picture? demosthenes1d wrote: However, there are always plenty of scientists ailling to challenge even the most “sacred” received wisdom because the reward for overturning the status quo is great. Demosthenes1d seems to be drawing his conclusions mainly from the recent climate debate where… Read more »
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html
Rigorous research has nothing to do with getting published. The modern incarnation of scientific journals are largely a joke.
Justin, I don’t know how familiar you are with the academic publishing industry, but there is an enormous difference between “journals” of feminist or gender studies and journals which document the research of real scientists like “Geology” or “The Journal of the American Chemical Society.” It is comparing apples and freight trains. The original Journal hoaxer Alan Sokal was pointing out how lax the standards were (are) in some realms of social science which have embraced postmodernism, in contrast to his fields of physics and math. The distinction is still extant. I am concerned about the politicization of reaearch, especially… Read more »
demosthenes1d wrote:
(cough) global warming. (cough)
demos, I don’t know how familiar you are with the academic publishing industry either, but I don’t think you’re seeing just how unconvincing your argument is. Your premise, that the Scientific community does not on the whole engage in prejudice and blackballing, is not in any way supported in your text. You give specific examples of supposedly good journal work, but the reason I didn’t bother to read them is that I didn’t contend that there were *no* papers in journals with legitimacy. We’re speaking to a generality, specific examples mean nothing. I can find for you examples of Christians… Read more »
Happy Birthday!
Thank you Katecho. I do appreciate the sentiment. I’m having a headache inducing day talking to people about Jim Acosta’s security credentials.
Its possible that you have run into the type of studies that get publicized. With the terms you have set I can’t do much for you, but you should educate yourself.
Pick up a top tier journal in any physical science – chemistry, physics, geology, anatomy and physiology, whatever, and read some research articles. No one can do it for you!
If you want comparison, you can pick up a feminist journal, or a history journal, or (sadly) a theology journal.
“Pick up a top tier journal in any physical science – chemistry, physics, geology, anatomy and physiology, whatever, and read some research articles. No one can do it for you!”
You’re missing the boat. I’ve read them on numerous occasions. I’ve seen first hand that they aren’t credible.
“You should educate yourself” is not an argument, it’s just condescension. So far, condescension has made the majority of your “logic”.
I tried to edit this back in, rather than double post, but alas….
“No one can do it for you!”
You should try actually making a point of material significance. No one can do it for you!
Justin,
No condescension intended. You indicated that you couldn’t trust my account of the matter – which is fine – so I indicated you should go to the source. Ad Fontes!
Now you indicate that you have read many top tier journals in the physical sciences – and i assume your earlier comment holds that you immediately see at least 5 major unaccounted for variables. If you read “Astrophysical Journal” and immediately deconstruct their papers there is certainly nothing I (or anyone else) can teach you!
“No condescension intended. You indicated that you couldn’t trust my account of the matter – which is fine – so I indicated you should go to the source. Ad Fontes!” Demo, that *is* an argument of condescension. You assume, based upon nothing, that since I disagree with you I simply must not be as informed as you are. So rather than formulate an actual argument utilizing the data you believe I’m lacking, you just claim that I need to do more reading. It’s completely fallacious, and can be used by anyone to pretend to win any point. I can say… Read more »
Justin, This is really trifling, but apparently I’m still game. This thread began with you making the strong assertion that “Rigorous research has nothing to do with getting published. The modern incarnation of scientific journals are largely a joke.” You supported said assertion with an articke about the recent “Sokal Squared” incident, when fake and or fraudulent papers were submitted to a number of critical studies journals such as Social Text, and Feminism. The stated claim of the perpetrators was to expose the “Grievance Studies” journals. They specifically targeted “the academic areas of cultural, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies… Read more »
“This thread began with you making the strong assertion that “Rigorous research has nothing to do with getting published. The modern incarnation of scientific journals are largely a joke.”” This is obviously and observably not true. That post of mine was clearly a response. A response to what? “This victimhood mentality is really out of control. Young earth creationists aren’t agressively censored in the sciences. They often don’t get published and don’t get teaching gigs at legitimite research universities because those things require a demonstrated ability to follow the scientific method and a competent grasp of the field.” You made… Read more »
Studies like the one you mention can be so agenda-driven that researchers are careless in all the ways you mention in the fond hope that no one will notice. I think this is particularly prevalent in the “pop” psychology and sociology research that is routinely fed to anxious parents. My own response to such findings is to wait a few months or years until some new study contradicts them. As you note, you don’t have to know anything about child development to notice problems with defining terms, sample size, control groups, and data handling. Critical reading skills will do just… Read more »
“But I agree with Demo that there is ongoing research in the hard sciences that can’t be meaningfully evaluated by even the most logical of laymen because basic comprehension demands a post-graduate familiarity with the material.” Ok Jill. Let’s take this as true at face value. Obviously its degree of truthfulness will vary wildly, depending on the research at hand, but for the sake of argument let’s say this is universal. Does that actually help Demos’ point? Because now he’s in the position of trying to establish a group of people as being trustworthy who no one can understand. Now… Read more »
Justin, take the example of Nature, considered one of best research journals in the world. They publish only what they consider to be the most novel, significant, and evidence-based research which in their words will advance science and influence others working in the same field. I don’t expect to understand their articles because they were not written for me. Nor do I expect to understand conversations between my nephrologist and my pharmacologist; I trust their expertise and wait patiently for the dumbed down patient’s version. How could science advance if highly specialized knowledge and complex terminology were seen as a… Read more »
” How could science advance if highly specialized knowledge and complex terminology were seen as a sign of elitism and bad faith? ” I didn’t say that it was. I said that it wasn’t a sign of trustworthiness. As you may have noticed, my argument for some time now has been that Demo hasn’t even come close to the vicinity of the ballpark of proving his case. Though you’ve provided significantly more material argument for the point in this one post than Demo did in about a dozen, so I suppose I have to start providing a counterpoint again. ”… Read more »
Justin, your comment about the supernatural and Dark Matter has caused me to retreat into myself, gibbering as I go, until such time as I figure out what I think about it. I will reply in due course!
Do put Dark Matter simply, and I’m sure someone out there on the boards has a better understanding of it than me, is this. Where all the planets and stars and stuff in the universe physically is, and how is moves, is contradictory to how we know gravity to work. We need another force in play, some other way to generate gravity in the right places for our understanding of the universe to match what he see. So they have hypothesized about a material that exists out that, creating the gravity, but we have no way to see it or… Read more »
The unmoved mover dilemma is also a supernatural gap in materialistic evolution. That gap in causation has been known to them (and to us) for quite some time, and their answer is, apparently still, that matter is right magical stuff.
Gosh Jolly, I used to be blonde, now I’m just bald.
Methinks I have been robbed! ????
Happy Thanksgiving!
“If you want comparison, you can pick up a feminist journal, or a history journal, or (sadly) a theology journal.”
Case in point (with a foreward from the supposedly conservative stalwart, Ligon Duncan):
https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Church-Christians-Confront-Injustice/dp/0802416985
AD Robles, a pastor with Puerto Rican ancestry, has been critiquing the book on Youtube. I’m surprised how quickly Reformed and Evangelicals have embraced this stuff.
Justin, those hoaxers couldn’t even get any sociology or psychology journals to publish their work, much less scientific journals. They were only able to get the crap published in obscure gender-studies and race-studies journals, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the established publishers of work in the math and sciences.
Citing a link to gender studies and claiming it shows that scientific journals are a joke is like citing a dumb statement by your local astrologer and claiming you’ve now demonstrated the folly of organized religion.
“Citing a link to gender studies and claiming it shows that scientific journals are a joke is like citing a dumb statement by your local astrologer and claiming you’ve now demonstrated the folly of organized religion.”
Good thing I didn’t claim the evidence showed that. In fact, I’ve been very consistent in stating that singular examples do not prove a trend.
Curious though, any particular reason why you’re concerned with whether my evidence proves my claims, while staying silent on none of Demos’ evidence proving his claims?
Jonathan wrote:
(cough) Global warming. (cough)
demosthenes1d wrote: This victimhood mentality is really out of control. Young earth creationists aren’t agressively censored in the sciences. Something is certainly out of control. Aside from any suggestions about my mental state or motives, regarding the fact of what I said, could demosthenes1d list any remaining government K-12 schools that are permitted to teach, or even entertain, creation (let alone intelligent design, or young earth theory) in the sciences (other than, perhaps, to ridicule it)? I’m sure activist evolutionsts and secularists would love to see the list so they can get to work shutting it down. If there is… Read more »
Katecho, Homeopathy isn’t taught in medical textbooks either, because there is very little evidence that it works. If you want to go on the offensive and get your information into government schools you have two options: A. You convince those in power that your topic is worthy despite the dearth of evidence (a la transenderism and woke studies), this is basically what YECers tried to do in the run up to Dover. Or B. You do some research and demonstrate that you are correct. There is nothing keeping YECers from doing real research. They have large stable funding sources that… Read more »
demosthenes1d wrote: If you want to go on the offensive and get your information into government schools you have two options Demosthenes1d doesn’t seem to be listening at this point. I already said I have no desire to force secularists to teach creation. They would do it poorly, as AiG already observes. I want to see government schools defunded completely. However, I’m pointing out the hypocrisy, demagoguery and censorship engaged in, broadly, by the evolutionists. So far, demosthenes1d has unwittingly aided me in support of that basic observation. It’s just bizarre to me that demosthenes1d could still believe that access… Read more »
demosthenes1d wrote: You convince those in power that your topic is worthy despite the dearth of evidence (a la transenderism and woke studies), this is basically what YECers tried to do in the run up to Dover. There are a number of implied misrepresentations here. For clarification, Intelligent Design is not a YEC theory, nor is it, in spite of the Dover judge’s activist proclamation, a religious theory. The intelligent designer could simply be an alien intelligence. Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis is an intelligent design hypothesis, for example, and should be banned from government curriculum using the Dover judge”s twisted logic.… Read more »
Katecho,
Quite right, I was very hasty, and very wrong, in my characterization of the Dover case (and the whole battle of Kansas). My apologies.
Domosthenes is demonstrating why very few knowledgeable people are willing to take the time to discuss science in these comments.
Certainly Judge Jones could have ruled against the Dover school board without making a judicial finding that ID is religious. There was clear evidence that the board acted with a religious purpose (and in fact there was clear evidence that the board had little understanding of ID). But it is important to note that the judge was in possession of the Wedge Document (as well as other ID foundational writings), and its language would tend to make any careful reader skeptical about ID’s claims to be nonreligious: “We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific… Read more »
“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” (Phillip Johnson, American Family Radio, Jan 10, 2003 broadcast) The secular evolutionsts are allowed to have their godless strategy for the education of our nation’s youth, but the ID movement is supposed to be strategy-free. Phillip Johnson really had no excuse to be unaware of the double-standard that ID would face. The reigning “neutrality” monopoly is just emboldened by these feeble attempts to access the… Read more »
” Even so, as I said, ID is of little use to Christians. ” Most particularly, I don’t think God is much of a “how” person. He wrote a rather large tome for us to get to know Him better, and in virtually none of it did He spend writing about the “how” with which He does things. I would find it unlikely that this would be the case if arguing about the “how” of creation were a primary concern for the target audince of His book. Instead, as a generality, I think Christians should speak to the innate strengths… Read more »
Well said, and generally agreed. I would clarify that when I say ID is of little use to Christians, I mean ID as a monument to an “unknown intelligence”. I don’t at all mean to suggest that the creation paradigm of God as Creator is of little use. God’s role as Creator is foundational to our moral obligation and purpose as creatures. I would grant that the “who” is more important than the “how”, and yet, God felt it was important to provide many key details in describing His creative actions. Genesis has enough details to be incompatible with the… Read more »
“It’s a Trumpish maneuver, intended to signal dominance and disrespect rather than to understand and inform.”
Well, as long as Matt is using a kettle. It would be terrible if he used a pot like Wilson does.
Or maybe I’m being too hasty. Maybe the phrase “Trumpish maneuver” actually means something other than a signal of intellectual superiority and disrespect for Wilson’s approach. I await confirmation either way.
Is it truly impossible to name and shame demagoguery without engaging in it? If so then the demagogues always win.
Matt wrote: Is it truly impossible to name and shame demagoguery without engaging in it? If so then the demagogues always win. On the contrary, I think evolutionism is headed for a great fall from power. Matt is certainly attempting to name and shame something, but he has simply erred in identifying the party behind all the demagoguery. Fortunately, demogogues will not always win. Christ is rightful King and heir, and He will receive His inheritance. If nothing else, even by its own principles evolutionism must eventually go out with a whimper because there can be no genetic barrier forever… Read more »
Yes, by using constructive language and pointing out the actual fallacies in the argument, instead of just throwing around ideological cuss words that we’re supposed to respond to in Pavlovian fashion. Are you seriously suggesting that in that entire article, there is nothing to respond to, if only to point out the specific reason the statement is vacuous? You really are doing nothing better than what you accuse him of, and therefore providing no one any reason to take your criticism with the least seriousness, with that kind of dismissiveness. If you just want to score points for yourself that… Read more »
“Is it truly impossible to name and shame demagoguery without engaging in it?”
So should we respond to your frequent 1 or 2 line, drive-by comments with this statement?
Oh, I don’t know, Matt… Darwinism doesn’t exactly look smart when you consider that most homosexuals totally buy into it.
And if the irony of such a thing goes over your pretty little head, well, let’s just say that the intelligence of Darwinism takes another hit.
It’s difficult to see how homosexuality could evolve over time, because by definition there is only one generation who are homosexual.
Assuming homosexuality is actually genetic, homosexuals can and often do procreate.
Matt, homosexuals don’t procreate by having homosexual “sex”. Or did you not learn that in biology? If anything, the fact that homosexuals can, and often do engage in normal sex (which, in case you’ve forgotten, is what results in babies) is evidence against homosexuality being genetic.
It’s almost like they’re making a choice. Besides, there is no “gay gene”; anyone who says otherwise is a science denier.
There is no “height gene” either. Does that mean height isn’t heritable?
I don’t believe a genetic determinist view of sexual orientation, the whole category “sexual orientation” is problematic. But the idea that genetic variation has no role in peoples sexual behavior is absurd.
” But the idea that genetic variation has no role in peoples sexual behavior is absurd.” It also isn’t the argument that’s being made. For decades the gay movement has used the argument “I was born this way” as a shield to all opposing views. If being gay is like being black, then suddenly everyone who doesn’t like your behavior is basically a racist. In order for the shield to work, they don’t just need to show that there’s a small element that effects overall behaviors, they need to show that they are 100% trapped by biology into never being… Read more »
Demo, you wrote:
Demo, if you’re a real scientist, then this type of category error really is beneath you. Have you forgotten that homosexuality, unlike height or race, is a behavior?
Or would you rather wax eloquent on how biologically determined traits such as sex are really fluid and can be anything one wills it to be, but what one does with their biologically determined genitals is fixed and immutable?
Hey, FP. I wouldnt think of arguing that sex is mutable or that sexual proclivities are immutable. Indeed as I noted I don’t buy the concept of sexual orientation at all. I have some reservations, but i recommend the approach of Michael Hannon in his classic article “Against Heterosexuality”. However, genetic endowmnent does play a role in a great many (all?) behaviors. To acknowledge that is not the same as being a fatalist.
Hey, FP. I wouldn’t think of arguing that sex is mutable or that sexual proclivities are immutable. Fair enough. But that is the argument the left puts forth, which they’ve used successfully to un-define marriage, legitimize that which is biologically impossible, and generally cause chaos and confusion for an entire culture. Indeed as I noted I don’t buy the concept of sexual orientation at all. Agreed. The concept of “sexual orientation” is nothing more than sophistry, used as a ploy to rationalize sexually deviant behavior. However, genetic endowment does play a role in a great many (all?) behaviors. That statement… Read more »
I just don’t get the Thabiti fanboys like Bill. If his support of pro-abortion, pro-LBGTQ candidates wasn’t bad enough, his anti-law enforcement bias (and family’s history of anti-police violence) is quite shocking.
https://rjgarnerauthor2.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/thabiti-anyabwiles-anti-cop-bias/
https://pulpitandpen.org/2016/07/13/brother-of-blm-supporter-thabiti-anyabwile-was-arrested-for-assault-and-resisting-arrest/
I am no Thabiti supporter but having a brother who is a thug is absolutely no reflection on someone, unless that person supports the thug’s actions. Men are to be judged by the people they have authority over, not everyone who is related to them.
Sure, but he was given multiple opportunities to distance himself from his brother or condemn his actions. You’d think someone as outspoken as he is would make his position clear. The fact he deletes comments at TGC that refute his claims (which has been noted by commenters here as well) is pretty alarming, too.
What else would you expect? Do you really think that Thabiti operates from good faith? Do you really think his agenda is anything other than to take white people down a peg?
Compared to what you have led me to believe about your own agenda–to vote nonwhites off the island–you can hardly expect my indignation over a futile and silly wish to take white people down a peg. If that is what he is doing. Which I doubt.
Not to mention that, if the information in the link is correct, he’s referring to a 32 year old incident involving a brother who has been dead 12 years. I can understand in the right scenario having to defend your own actions, or the actions of those you have chosen to support/associate with. But people who you just happen to have been born into relationship with? I don’t believe people need to publicly disparage the long-past behavior of every blood relative. If you consider a 32-year-old incident by a person’s brother as your main point of attack into their character,… Read more »
Jonathan wrote:
How about a 35-year-old incident involving Kavanaugh’s high school classmates? Jonathan seemed to be all over that a few weeks ago. The irony.
You mean this thread? https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/our-sentiments-exactly.html I have a hundred or so statements there, but being “all over a 35-year-old incident involving Kavanaugh’s high school classmates” was not among them. Within those 100 comments, I may have mentioned them at most in passing and certainly not as the main point or even the disqualifying point. The insinuation that I used it as the main point of attack into his character is completely false. If you are not insinuating that, then what is ironic here? My issues with Kavanaugh were that he was far too politically partisan for a Supreme Court Justice… Read more »
And for perhaps the 8th or 10th time I will ask you again: Do not refer to my past statements without quoting me. You misrepresent me OVER and OVER again. While you have proven able to misrepresent me even with the quotes there, at least the quotes make it much simpler to deal with your falsehoods.
I don’t see how this is shocking. Thabiti is an Afro-centric agitator/operative being used by the cultural elite (like all other blacks like him) to critique and subvert the American reformed movement, which the elite see as predominantly white. He must not be treated as a believer. The reformed leadership should excommunicate him for the good of the body of Christ, that he might be brought to repentance. Thabiti is a test. It’s truly amazing how few of the reformed elite can see that
We don’t need to fight identity politics with more identity politics.
As for “Reformed leadership excommunicating” Thabiti, I believe he’s in the SBC. If they got rid of him, they’d need to oust the rest of the Evangelical Intersectionality Complex: egalitarians, other critical theory hustlers, Revoice sympathizers, the ERLC, etc….in other words, the leadership would have to excommunicate itself. Good luck with that.
“We don’t need to fight identity politics with more identity politics.”
I don’t know what you mean by this.
You come across as an alt-white type. That’s just another brand of identity politics.
Whites who reject identity politics (i.e. practically all conservative whites) do so based on the idea that tribalism is morally beneath them. But if every other race employs identity politics without batting an eye, what does that conservative principled approach imply, but that your own moral paradigm is superior to that of other races? How is this not supremacist thinking? Either we accept that our morally superior (by conservatives’ own admission) system based on a rejection of identity politics can’t be adopted on any widespread level by other groups, leading to the conclusion that those groups on average have less… Read more »
A lot of material. I better start from the top. “Whites who reject identity politics (i.e. practically all conservative whites) do so based on the idea that tribalism is morally beneath them. ” No. They do so on the basis that it is fundamentally irrational. Making broad sweeping judgements based on arbitrary characteristics is the basis of nearly every deeply silly and superstitious belief ever held by man. It’s not a matter of “being above” something. It’s a matter of being able to think clearly. ” But if every other race employs identity politics without batting an eye, what does… Read more »
The problem with “identity politics” is not that issues are treated from the agenda and perspective of a particular identity. No, the problem with identity politics is that it elevates secondary identities (like race, sex, wealth, nationality) into the primary identity. It simply draws the battle lines in the wrong place. Scripture says that our primary identity is to be in Christ, and that this union is to transform our entire being, and outlook, and politic. It’s the only true and valid identity politic, because it is the identity that mankind was created and intended for. As we identify with… Read more »
He obviously believes you represent some kind of white identity politics. Is he wrong?
If either of your are legitimately unaware, Armin is quite overtly a white identity politics promoter. Whether or not you could say his text here fits within that framework, he has argued quite openly so in the past. He goes so far as to directly insult other people on the board based solely on some aspect of their identity. (To Kyriosity, under the topic of Thabiti) “Don’t bother racking your brain about that. Thabiti has no interest in providing a logically coherent argument to back up his assertions. This isn’t a good faith discussion. It is about taking white people… Read more »
I did not remember the name, but I recognize the quotes. Still, he should not claim not to understand what JP Stewart means. Unless he is dishonest, it is quite obvious.
I agreed with the entire content of your anti-Darwinian rant, though did not find it overly useful or helpful in the overall evolution debate. However, you write My main focus here was not to call Darwinians names, but rather to get non-Darwinian Christians to stop ceding the respectability point in the privacy of their own heads. In which case I am more sympathetic. For those of us who are otherwise convinced in the falsity of secular world’s largest lie…. There is nothing wrong with academia (ideally), but it is not always respectable (practically). And for too many Christians: peer review,… Read more »
” And for too many Christians: peer review, science, “studies show”, and “tenured professors believe” is, frankly, idolatrous.”
I would remove “science” from that list, provided we’re talking about actual science and not “whatever it is professional researchers happen to personally think” which often gets called science. It’s hard to fault actual science since it’s little more than applying objective standards to the process of elimination.
Webmaster
I am having problems commenting on the current system. Palemoon (Firefox) seems fine. Brave works. Chrome has infinite looping. My phone browser (Samsung Internet browser) has same problem.
Probably the same issue, but can’t expand the read more links on the problem browsers.
Same experience here.
Do you make any distinction between small e evolution (natural selection) and Evolution as the theory of how all living things came into being (theistic or otherwise)? Some may criticize your dismissal of one by conflating it with a dismissal of the other.
Griffin, I think that almost everyone accepts evolution defined as a change over time in the allele frequencies of a population, resulting from natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and mutation. What dissenters appear to reject is common ancestry and the vast amounts of time required for descent with modification. Some recognize evolution occurring at the species level, but believe that there is an impermeable barrier between “kinds.” They accept the former as micro-evolution but reject what they call macro-evolution: changes across species. But historically biologists have assigned different meanings to these terms. Creationists’ use of micro and macro is… Read more »
I generally agree with what you have said. My question is if Doug differentiates. Maybe there are previous posts/musings/books/rants from Doug that would answer that without need of a direct response from him.
I read a fascinating book by a fringe theologian (perhaps Whitehead?) that defined 14 completely separate things people could be talking about when they were speaking of “evolution”. Most people intend to refer to multiple of his 14 points when they use the term, but not all of them, and often different ones than each other.
For example, I think I could affirm maybe 9-10 of the 14 points, whereas an extreme materialist who doesn’t mind stepping outside of scientific evidence might affirm all 14.