Amazon.com Widgets

Hominid Hype and the Election Cycle

Casey Luskin writes:

It’s that time of the election cycle again. You know, the time when the media starts regularly deploying the “evolution test” to decide whether a candidate is mentally impaired. Those who capitulate to the Darwinian consensus are deemed of normal intelligence and fit for office. Those who don’t are subjected to public mockery and humiliation.

Summary: Yeah, scientists are smart and everyone else is dumb. Now that we have that out of the way, we can look at Casey’s list of greatly celebrated then delegated fossil hoaxes.

  • Piltdown man — a fraud
  • Ramapithecus — touted as an ancestor of humans, then ‘paleoanthropologists soon afterward were lamenting, “Ramapithecus walking upright has been reconstructed from only jaws and teeth” with “his legitimacy sanctified by millions of textbooks and Time-Life volumes on human evolution.” In fact, those claims were overturned in the 1970s and 1980s when more complete specimens were discovered, showing the species was unlike humans, and probably an extinct orangutan-like ape.’
  • Homo habilis — later reclassified
  • In 2002, Sahelanthropus tchadensis was touted as the “oldest fossil human,” even though all that was reported was one skull and a few jaw fragments, which some paleoanthropologists have suggested might have belonged to a female gorilla.
  • Ida — introduced by the media as the “eighth wonder of the world” whose “impact on the world of palaeontology” would be like “an asteroid falling down to Earth.” Famed BBC broadcaster Sir David Attenborough got involved, making a documentary titled Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link, to explain why Ida is “the link that connects us directly with the rest of the animal kingdom.” Just a few months later, Ida’s reign came to a sad end after scientists inspected the fossil and determined that “[m]any lines of evidence indicate that [Ida] has nothing at all to do with human evolution.”
  • ArdiScience journal’s “breakthrough of the year,” yet admitted that her bones were originally “crushed” and required over a decade of “reconstruction.” Other paleoanthropologists noted that Ardi was initially “crushed nearly to smithereens” and resembled “Irish stew.” Later, after cooler heads had prevailed, multiple studies found that Ardi was more similar to apes than humans, and concluded she was not a human ancestor. As Time magazine later reported, critical scientists regard “the hype around Ardi to have been overblown.”

Yeah, no wonder that we trust scientists like we trust clairvoyants. And human evolution is fact Fact, FACT — except when it is sham, Sham, SHAM. Global cooling Global warming Climate change hype… this is not science. It is philosophical and political hypemongering, coming from a secular priesthood trying its best to mirror and out-do the religious priesthood of the pre-Reformational Catholic church.

Listen to the audio presentation below:

When Christians Misbehave – William J. Murray

This is a pretty interesting scuffle. William J. Murray is the son of the late atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, of whom he declared “an evil person”.

What makes this discussion so interesting is the utter blindness of the atheist to the fact that he is pushing his worldview upon others. He seems to think that he holds the neutral ground and that Christians (and others) are trying to push their views upon others. Murray does not fall for this nonsense, rightly pointing out that the secular position is NOT neutral, but is in itself a biased position that forces its views upon the rest of us.

[Well, consider the secular media. They push their views about sex, marriage, relationships, politics, and almost everything else, upon all tax-payers.]

Murray also gets it right regarding atheism, situational ethics, and the Nazis.

Gutless pathetic atheists: A.C. Grayling, Polly Toynbee, Richard Dawkins

H/T to www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/

Another humdinger post from Rabbi Moshe Averick on atheist morality

I have picked out some quotes from the article which is here.  An excellent and well written argument titled:

A Plea to Atheists: Pedophilia Is Next On the Slippery Slope; Let Us Turn Back Before It Is Too Late

Let the quotes roll….. here goes:

Since in the atheistic worldview we are nothing more than upright walking primates, our value systems have no more significance than those of our jungle dwelling relatives. In the Darwinian view, the human is to the cockroach as the cockroach is to the paramecium. To imagine that we are something “more” is just that: a product of the human imagination.

This is a great quote to memorize:

“Morality is the custom of one’s country and the current feeling of one’s peers. Cannibalism is moral in a cannibalistic country.” (Samuel Butler)

On the moral basis of the rightness and wrongness of molesting children:

One can reasonably predict that as the infatuation with skepticism and atheism grows among the influential “intellectual elite” of our society, so too will their readiness to embrace more radical changes in moral values. Religious believers expressing dismay and horror at the ominous moral storm clouds looming on the horizon are met with smug derision, hysterical counter-accusations, or utter indifference. There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting – including the sexual molestation of children.

And another:

Joel Marks, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the U. of New Haven, who for 10 years authored the “Moral Moments” column in Philosophy Now, made the following, rather shocking about-face in a 2010 article entitled, “An Amoral Manifesto.”

“This philosopher has been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t…The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality…I experienced my shocking epiphany that religious fundamentalists are correct; without God there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.(www.philosophynow.org/issue80/An_Amoral_Manifesto_Part_I)

Marks then quite boldly and candidly addresses the implications of his newfound beliefs:

“Even though words like “sinful” and “evil” come naturally to the tongue as say a description of child molesting. They do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God…nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality…yet we human beings can still discover plenty of completely naturally explainable resources for motivating certain preferences. Thus enough of us are sufficiently averse to the molestation of children and would likely continue to be…

And finally:

A wise man once observed that while belief in God after the Holocaust may be difficult, belief in man after the Holocaust is impossible. The choices before us are clear: we will either seek a transcendent moral law to which we will all submit, or we will seek our own personal and societal indulgence. If we turn to God in our quest to create a moral and just world, we have a fighting chance; if not, we are doomed to spiral into the man-made hell of the human jungle.

Rabbi Moshe Averick is an orthodox rabbi and author of Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist. Rabbi Averick can be reached via his website at rabbimaverick.com/

Dawkins has refused numerous requests to debate William Lane Craig…

Bill Craig is heading to the UK to intellectually defend the existence of God. Here goes…

Dr. William Lane Craig has been asked to lecture across the United Kingdom – the first opportunity to do so in four years! Presenting the case for the truth of the Christian faith to thousands of students at such prestigious institutions as Cambridge University and Oxford is a special blessing as these students that may otherwise never hear Christianity thoughtfully defended.

Cambridge and Oxford are “home base” to the authors of two of the most popular books casting doubt on the existence of God today: Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Dawkins has refused numerous requests to debate Craig, so Bill will instead present an intelligent and gracious answer the charges levied in The God Delusion before a packed house of listeners eager to hear an alternate view.

That’s why we need friends like you to help support Reasonable Faith and the truth of the Gospel on today’s college campuses in the U.K., the U.S., and across the globe. Our campuses are battlegrounds of spiritual warfare and we must be diligent to not leave an “empty chair” in place of Christian ideas.

Your support will also help underwrite the translation of www.ReasonableFaith.org into Chinese, Spanish, and Portuguese. This is a top priority for us, as these are three of the most widely spoken languages worldwide, and we continue to receive requests from international students who need more materials in their own language.

Can you stand with us today by making a secure online gift now? And please pray for God’s hand upon Dr. Craig as he strikes out on the Reasonable Faith Tour in the UK this October.

Thank you for your continued support!

John Herring, President
Reasonable Faith

From the Office of the Chief Rabbi — China is reversing the decline and fall of Christianity

From www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical1764.aspx

Towards the end of his recent book, Civilization, the historian Niall Ferguson drops into his analysis an explosive depth-charge. He quotes a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, part of a team tasked with the challenge of discovering why it was that Europe, having lagged behind China until the 17th century, overtook it, rising to prominence and dominance.

At first, he said, we thought it was your guns. You had better weapons than we did. Then we delved deeper and thought it was your political system. Then we searched deeper still, and concluded that it was your economic system. But for the past 20 years we have realised that it was in fact your religion, Christianity. It was the Christian foundation of social and cultural life in Europe that made possible the emergence first of capitalism, then of democratic politics.

Equally arrestingly, Ferguson repeats the point made by the editor and Washington correspondent of The Economist, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, two years ago in their book God is Back. While Christianity is in decline in Britain and most of Europe, it is growing and thriving in China, where the number of people in church on Sunday is greater than the total membership of the Communist Party, in the land that in 1958 Chairman Mao had declared “religion free”.

The people flocking to the churches are not, as Karl Marx would have predicted, the poor and oppressed searching for the opium of the people. They are the young, hard-working, upwardly-mobile entrepreneurs for whom Christianity offers an ethical framework, a structured view of life and its disciplines, in a society experiencing rapid transition.

As a non-Christian, I find this fascinating. Europe is losing the very thing that once made it great, while China, the world’s fastest-growing economy, is discovering it. China: the home of Confucianism, Taoism and its own brand of communism. That is something no one could have foreseen.

What has China realised that the West is rapidly forgetting? That a civilisation is as strong as its faith. As a culture grows old and tired, as people borrow more and save less, as they value present pleasures over future growth, so they begin to lose the beliefs and practices that made their society successful in the first place.

It begins to resemble the Roman Empire at the start of its decline. The Roman historian Livy wrote, with great poignancy, about how “with the gradual relaxation of discipline, morals first subsided, as it were, then sank lower and lower, and finally began the downward plunge which has brought us to our present time, when we can endure neither our vices nor their cure.”

A half-century ago, Will Durant in The Story of Civilization, argued that the decline of a civilization was the culmination of strife between religion and secular intellectualism, which ended by weakening the institutions of convention and morality. “In the end a society and its religion tend to fall together, like body and soul, in a harmonious death.”

The decline and fall of civilisations has been charted by the wise for many centuries. They include the sages of ancient Egypt, the prophets of ancient Israel, the great 14th century Islamic thinker Ibn Khaldun, and the farseeing 18th-century Italian philosopher and historian Giambattista Vico.

They all offer essentially the same analysis. Civilizations begin by valuing austerity, courage and self-sacrifice. This sets them on a path to growth. As they become successful, they grow more self indulgent and self centred. People are no longer willing to make sacrifices for the group. Trust declines. Social capital wanes. There are no heroes any more. Renown gives way to fame and then to mere celebrity. That, Niall Ferguson implies, is the precipice we are approaching in the West.

Societies start growing old when they lose faith in the transcendent. They then lose faith in an objective moral order and end by losing faith in themselves. But there is an alternative. The West can rediscover what Jeremiah called “the devotion of your youth.”

Judaism and Christianity share an astonishing capacity for self renewal. That is what happened in Judaism after every tragedy from the Babylonian exile to the Holocaust. That is what is happening now to Christianity in many parts of the world, and it can happen here too.

We are as strong as our faith. That truth, once the West’s unique selling proposition, now comes with a label saying, “Made in China.” But it’s still worth buying.

Police water cannon and plastic bullets? After 50 years of the most lavish welfare state on earth? What an abject failure

A snippet from an article by Peter Hitchens, brother of “new atheist” Christopher Hitchens:

So yes, I am deeply sorry for the innocent and gentle people who have lost lives, homes, businesses and security. Heaven knows I have argued for years for the measures that might have saved them.

But I am not really very sorry for the elite liberal Londoners who have suddenly discovered what millions of others have lived with for decades. The mass criminality in the big cities is merely a speeded-up and concentrated version of life on most large estates – fear, intimidation, cruelty, injustice, savagery towards the vulnerable and the different, a cold sneer turned towards any plea for pity, the awful realisation that when you call for help from the authorities, none will come.

Just look and see how many shops are protected with steel shutters, how many homes have bars on their windows. This is not new.

As the polluted flood (it is not a tide; it will not go back down again) of spite, greed and violence washes on to their very doorsteps, well-off and influential Left-wingers at last meet the filthy thing they have created, and which they ignored when it did not affect them personally.

No doubt they will find ways to save themselves. But they will not save the country. Because even now they will not admit that all their ideas are wrong, and that the policies of the past 50 years – the policies they love – have been a terrible mistake. I have heard them in the past few days clinging to their old excuses of non-existent ‘poverty’ and ‘exclusion’.

Take our Prime Minister, who is once again defrauding far too many people. He uses his expensive voice, his expensive clothes, his well-learned tone of public-school command, to give the impression of being an effective and decisive person. But it is all false. He has no real idea of what to do. He thinks the actual solutions to the problem are ‘fascist’. Deep down, he still wants to ‘understand’ the hoodies.

Say to him that naughty children should be smacked at home and caned in school, that the police (and responsible adults) should be free to wallop louts and vandals caught in the act, that the police should return to preventive foot patrols, that prisons should be austere places of hard work, plain food and discipline without TV sets or semi-licit drugs, and that wrongdoers should be sent to them when they first take to crime, not when they are already habitual crooks, and he will throw up his well-tailored arms in horror at your barbarity.

Say to him that divorce should be made very difficult and that the state should be energetically in favour of stable, married families with fathers (and cease forthwith to subsidise families without fathers) and he will smirk patronisingly and regard you as a pitiable lunatic.

Say to him that mass immigration should be stopped and reversed, and that those who refuse any of the huge number of jobs which are then available should be denied benefits of any kind, and he will gibber in shock.

Britain’s liberal intelligentsia has smashed virtually every social value

From Melanie Phillips at MailOnline:

So now the chickens have well and truly come home terrifyingly to roost. The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.

The married two-parent family, educational meritocracy, punishment of criminals, national identity, enforcement of the drugs laws and many more fundamental conventions were all smashed by a liberal intelligentsia hell-bent on a revolutionary transformation of society.

Those of us who warned over the years that they were playing with fire were sneered at and smeared as Right-wing nutters who wanted to turn the clock back to some mythical golden age.

Indeed, “The riots have been fuelled by moral collapse”…

When Labour came to power in 1997, it set about systematically destroying not just the traditional family but the very idea that married parents were better for children than any other arrangement.

Instead, it introduced the sexual free-for-all of ‘lifestyle choice’; claimed that the idea of the male breadwinner was a sexist anachronism; and told girls that they could, and should, go it alone as mothers.

This was the outcome of the shattering defeat of Tony Blair, in the two years or so after he came to power, at the hands of the ultra-feminists and apostles of non-judgmentalism in his Cabinet and party who were determined, above all, to destroy the traditional nuclear family.

Blair stood virtually alone against them, and lost.

One of these ultra-feminist wreckers was Harriet Harman. The other night, she was on TV preposterously suggesting that cuts in educational allowances or youth workers had something to do with young people torching and looting shops, robbing and leaving people for dead in the streets.

But Harman was one of the principal forces in the Labour government behind the promotion of lone parenthood and the marginalisation of fathers. If anyone should be blamed for bringing about the conditions which have led to these appalling scenes in our cities, it is surely Ms Harman.

And this breaking of the family was further condoned, rewarded and encouraged by the Welfare State, which conceives of need solely in terms of absence of money, and which accordingly subsidises lone parenthood and the destructive behaviour that fatherlessness brings in its train.

And finally a challenge:

When church leaders stop prattling like soft-headed social workers and start preaching, once again, the moral concepts that underlie our civilisation, and when our political leaders decide to oppose the culture war that has been waged against that civilisation rather than supinely acquiescing in its destruction, then — and only then — will we start to get to grips with this terrible problem.

Until then, within the smouldering embers of our smashed and burned-out cities, we can only look upon the ruins of the Britain we have so dearly loved; the Britain that once led the world towards civilisation, but is now so tragically leading the way out.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024690/UK-riots-2011-Britains-liberal-intelligentsia-smashed-virtually-social-value.html

Why Are There Not More Riots?

Much profound thinking from Justin Taylor:

C.S. Lewis, in his prophetic The Abolition of Man (1943):

And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for these very qualities we are rendering impossible.  You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more ‘drive’, or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or ‘creativity’.  In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function.  We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

Brad Green comments:

. . . A culture—the UK or otherwise—cannot generation after generation laugh at honour and virtue and then be surprised that a culture has produced people who have no interest in honor or virtue.  The most foundational question is not, “what caused these riots?”, but rather, “why are there not more riots?”  That is, a culture that systematically and repeatedly and thoroughly laughs at virute and honor should not be surprised when they look up to see traitors in their midst.  We cannot make “men without chests” and then be surprised to see them face-to-face.  May God help the UK, and all of us.

See also Theodore Dalrymple’s comments in The Spectactor:

I doubt there are many people who have never in their lives experienced the pleasure of inflicting some kind of pain on others, physical or mental, from sheer malice and delight in doing so. It is an urge that we overcome first by effort and then by habit.

It is one of the tasks of civilisation to tame our inherent savagery. But who, contemplating contemporary British culture, would recognise in it any civilising influence, or rather fail to recognise its opposite? It is a constant call to and celebration of degradation, not only physical but spiritual and emotional. A culture in which Amy Winehouse, with her militant vulgarity and self-indulgent stupidity, combined with a very minor talent, could be so extravagantly admired and feted, is not one to put up strong barriers against our baser instincts, desires and urges. On the contrary, that culture has long been a celebration of those very urges. He who pays the savage never gets rid of the savagery; and this is only the beginning.

A Christian Terrorist in Norway?

From here: www.ligonier.org/blog/christian-terrorist-norway/

Last Friday (July 22, 2011), a bomb went off in Oslo killing eight people and injuring many more. Soon afterward, a gunman went on a shooting spree at an island youth camp in Norway, killing 68 people. The gunman was arrested and later claimed responsibility for both attacks.

When interviewed by the police, Breivik claimed that his actions were intended to save his country and all of Europe from Marxist and Muslim infiltration. Because of his belief that it is failing on the issue of immigration, he wanted to create as much loss as he could for Norway’s Labour Party. The bomb, therefore, was placed near buildings occupied by Labour Party members, and the shooting occurred at a Labour Party youth camp.

Political terrorism has not been unusual in the twentieth and twenty-first century, but this attack hits home for those of us who claim to be Christian because Breivik has identified himself as one of us on his Facebook page. He claims to be a Christian. This has raised important questions in the minds of many. First and foremost, does Christianity promote such politically inspired violence? Some would say yes, pointing to the Crusades as an example. In the following article, however, Dr. Robert Godfrey says no: He rightly points out that it is a betrayal of Christ to “identify Him with the slaughter of political enemies. As Christians, we must seek always to advance Christ’s cause through truth joined by love and self-sacrifice, not through violence.”

Read “The Crusades” by W. Robert Godfrey

Atheism Will Doom Britain, but Does It Have to Be this Way?

Source: blog.equip.org/?p=214

In an op-ed piece for The Jerusalem Post, Shmuley Boteach laments “Godlessness has doomed Britain,” since “Atheism equals nihilism, neither of which are fertile ground for a national resurgence.” The logic of this is impeccable. Boteach points out that Britain’s greatest exports on the subject of religion are from thinkers who despise religion, such as Richard Dawkins who “compared religion to child abuse,” and Christopher Hitchens, who “titled his 2007 book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” He also observes that whereas 92 percent of Americans believe in God, according to Britain’s National Center for Social Research, only 35 percent in Britain, and 43 percent declare no religion.

One can also point out that the militant approach of New Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens carries a strong rhetorical sway, and their arguments on the surface appear convincing. It is only when one examines them closely under the light of truth that one realizes none of them hold any water. (See “Village Atheists with Vengeance.”)

Boteach finds that there is nothing comparable in Britain to American megachurch pastors like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen, and reasons that in the latter there is no official state church with religion being entrepreneurial, in the sense that “religion lives and dies in America like a commercial enterprise.” Pastors who “excite” with “uplifting and relevant” messages will fill pews, and those who do not will have empty pews. He also attributes “religious fervor” to the growth of America, “from pioneering backwoodsmen to the most powerful and innovative nation on earth,” whereas British influence has waned in the past century with “militant atheism” being “a key reason.” His explanation is that “atheism is a philosophy of nihilism in which nothing is sacred and all is accidental.”

The endgame of belief in a purely material universe that came about by random chance through the Darwinian Evolutionary process with its survival of the fittest and extinction of the inferior is nihilism. Boteach is certainly on target.

Whie it is generally true that “religious fervor” is a contributing factor to the growth and expansion of the United States, it is not “relevant” preaching that forms foundations of innovation and progress. One can argue that an attempt to be relevant makes for irrelevance (see “How Relevant Is Relevance?”). While Joel Osteen does have mass appeal, his overall message can be considered a“Gospel of Self-Esteem” or “Gospel-Light.” Whether or not his name-it-and-claim-it prosperity gospel can provide spiritual foundations for lasting social transformation is doubtful.

To be more precise, one can make the case that the Bible has been the spiritual source underlying progress in Western Civilization. Vishal Mangalwadi, in his lecture series entitled “Must the Sun Set on the West,” makes a compelling case that the sun is setting on the West because the West has severed itself from the source of its greatness, the Bible; however, the sun need not set on the West, because people can still return to the source of their greatness. Ultimately, it is from minds deeply influenced by the truth of Scripture that have gone on to make innovations that ultimately transformed the West. How Christianity Changed the World also explores the way Christianity inspired the highest achievements in Western civilization from its humble beginnings.

— Warren Nozaki

Albert Mohler and Alan Dershowitz on Israel and terrorism…

…and numerous other topics during a fascinating interview.  Here is the transcript of the podcast:

www.albertmohler.com/2011/05/25/moral-reasoning-in-a-secular-age-a-conversation-with-professor-alan-dershowitz/

Mohler: Thinking hard about those kind of issues leads me to a questions that’s drawn not so much from the kind of academic discussion or even the context of litigation but rather international relations. President Barak Obama recently set forth his plan for the achievement of a stable Middle East peace, and in it, he for instance called for Israel to return to the 1967 boundaries to use the language which the president employed. I know as a friend of Israel you have to have a strong opinion about that. [Read more...]

The New Atheism (by Norm Geisler)

Praxman and Ditchkins on Science

William Lane Craig’s Reaction to Richard Dawkins’ Refusal to Debate Him