Friday, March 25, 2011

Atheism, Creationism and a Conflict of Interest

Atheistic naturalists are inherently incapable of critiquing any theory which presupposes miraculous events. This is for the same reason of judicial 'conflict of interest'.

Suppose an accused man was brought before a judge who was his father. If the judge insisted on presiding over the accused he would be forced to step down from the case because of an obvious conflict of interest. The reason this is so is because the accused is likely to be benefited by the judge’s predisposition towards favouring him due to their special relationship. Thus, the judge has an ineradicable favouring towards the accused, therefore the outcome is quite likely to be skewed.

The same is true of atheistic naturalists who wish to pass judgement over creationism.

The most foundation axiom for the atheist is that supernatural events do not exist, and as such the ‘supernatural’ is totally excluded from even consideration. This means that their starting assumption - there is no supernatural events – conflicts with the task at hand - critiquing creationism - because creationism presupposes supernatural events as an axiom of it's model of origins.

The fact that the atheist has an ineradicable disposition against creationism means that his conclusion will be highly skewed; the atheist has a substantial conflict of interest when discussing creationism.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Revolutionary Christianity

I am halfway through ‘Atheist Delusions’ by D. B. Hart, and WOW! I love his writing style, those I think most people would find it a little verbose. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve had to reach for my dictionary!

It is a superb refutation of the fabricated history that so many atheist authors feel forced to employ to find something to criticise Christianity with.

But on another level, it is quite good for illuminating the reader about just how radical and emancipatory Christianity was to the ancient world. We in the modern world have largely become blind to just how great Christianity is. Modern critics take the New Testament and nitpick grievances from it and claim that it is an inferior form of ethics compared to the modern Western ethics. But they err by forgetting that the modern Western society that they so cherish is a direct product of that same Christian ethic!!!

The Christian ethic of equality, freedom and rights for all humans was so revolutionary that it basically turned the old pagan order and it’s ethic on it’s head.

We tend to think that the Christian ethic is not particularly special in light of our society’s current ethic. But what Christianity’s critics, and Christians themselves, forget is that the Christian ethic that was taught by Christ is actually the most radical ethic ever invented, and the fact that this revolutionary ethic was born in a pagan society that was so directly contrasted to it goes to show it's Devine originality in my opinion.

For me, the fact that it is only societies which have been built upon Christianity which produce ideals such as liberty, freedom of speech and egalitarianism, is proof enough of the superiority of the Christian worldview.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Alien Autopsy

I have recently been given a whole pile of videos, from a guy at work, of the UFO/Alien phenomena. Currently I’m part way through the fabled ‘Alien Autopsy’ video. And I must say it is very convincing!

So what is so convincing about the Alien Autopsy video? Let me just say that if this is a hoax -which the amazing human ingenuity is fully capable of achieving- it is a bloody good one!

• The external appearance of the body is very life like, despite the grainy and monotone nature of the film.

• The hands and feet have six digits, as opposed to our five

• Blood seeps from the pathologist’s incisions. Not so much as to mimic a still-pumping heart, but just enough as to indicate the presence of a fluid below the external surface

• One knee joint is slightly flexed by the pathologist which indicated that the body isn’t one solid fabricated block. I would expect rigor-mortis to have stiffened the body, but hey, I would also expect that extraterrestrial bodies would behave differently to ours!

• The skin, when peeled back, behaves as I would expect from a real organism

One thing that annoyed me was that whenever the camera went in for a close-up, the video went all blurry, which totally negated the purpose of getting the camera up close in the first place. Maybe this was to hide the less-than-convincing details of the hoax close up. Either that or camera operator was a trainee or just really drunk.

I kept expecting the thing to jump up and scare the hair off me, as so often happens in every alien autopsy scene in the movies! But alas, it was totally inanimate (phew!).

Being a devout Christian, I naturally believe that there are simply no intelligent extraterrestrial life forms, period. But that is not to say I am hopelessly biased and incapable of rational critique of the phenomena, like so many of the so-called ‘sceptical’ scientists that are interviewed in such videos. These people are so hopelessly blinded by their own ideology and arrogance that they can’t even address the phenomena without working themselves up into a childishly arrogant hissy-fit. The opinions of these types of so-called ‘scientists’ can legitimately be rejected out of hand as nothing more than pathetically myopic bigotry.

My opinion: FAKE (but a very good one!)

Friday, March 11, 2011

Science and the Bible

I’ve just received a first edition of “Science and the Bible: or, The Mosaic Creation and Modern Discoveries”, by Rev. Herbert W. Morris, 1871. As the description below states, Morris advocates a ‘Ruin-Reconstruction’ type exegesis of Genesis.

I’m looking forward to seeing what differences exist, if any, between this old form of secular-compromising, and that which more modern compromisers propound.

Morris believed in a six day creation long after Darwin and anthropologists began to find evidence of mankind living longer ago than previously believed. He believed in an old universe but a young humanity and a literal deluge, like many of the 19th century Christians.

His literal view of the Bible was undiminished. He wrote:

"Few readers need be informed that the theory has been advanced, that these days were not literal days, but immensely long periods. Much ingenuity and learning have been exercised in attempts to make the Divine Record countenance this idea. While we regard the great facts of geology as being established by proofs second only to the mathematical demonstrations of astronomy, yet we are constrained to say, that the method pursued to establish this interpretation does not appear to us to be plain and fair dealing with the Word of God but rather a "torturing of the Book of Life out of its proper meaning." If the first chapter of Genesis can be made to mean what these theories express, other portions of Scripture can, with equal ease, be made to mean almost anything that the whim of man may desire, or his imagination invent. Here the point to be decided is, not what this Scripture can be made to mean, but what does it mean what idea was it intended to convey? We believe that it means literal and natural days, for the following reasons:……. "(Morris, 1871, p. 80)”

Saturday, March 5, 2011

YEC, ID and the God of the Gaps

Atheist Fairytales

The ‘God of the Gaps’ idea (hereafter abbreviated as gotg) is commonly used as a disparaging epithet against anyone who denies that only natural causes have been in effect in the universe’s history. Wikipedia defines it as:

a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge, or that otherwise lack a plausible natural explanation….a tendency to postulate acts of God to explain phenomena for which science has yet to give a satisfactory account.[Emphasis added]

I will ignore the non-sequitur logical fallacy of the gotg argument that, just because you can imagine a plausible natural explanation for an event in the past doesn’t mean that it actually occurred that way. Instead I want to focus on it’s common application to the two worldviews of Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and the Intelligent Design movement (ID).

It seems to me that the idea of filling the explanatory gaps in the naturalist theory of origins with ‘god did it’ is most applicable to ID. To explain why this is so, a brief explanation of what ID is, is necessary. Wikipedia defines ID as the:

proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

This means that ID basically accepts every single part of the atheistic model of evolutionary origins, except where atheistic evolution fails to explain how something happened, like the commonly cite bacterial flagellum. So whenever naturalism fails to provide a plausible explanation of how something could have occurred naturally, ID says “god did it” (or to be more accurate: “a designer did it”). So we see that the definition of what ID is, inherently includes the essential logic of the ‘God of the Gaps’ idea.

YEC on the other hand, rejects all forms of evolution (be it atheistic, theistic, deistic etc) totally and utterly. YEC has a totally different model for the origin of life. It completely rejects the idea that all life has commonly descent from bacteria via any form of evolution. YEC rejects the theory that all life has a common ancestry as merely a figment of the imagination, and as a false interpretation of the empirical data that the earth’s rocks provide.
I would consider YEC immune from the gotg allegation, as opposed to ID (or any other variation of theistic naturalism), because YEC doesn’t actually attempt to insert supernaturalism in the gaps of the atheistic framework, but inserts supernaturalism in place of the whole atheistic framework itself!
Thus, if the YEC theory rejects the actual whole fractured framework of evolution, than any accusation that the YEC theory is a gotg type theory is inapplicable since the YEC model rejects the actual framework and thus the gaps that gotg thinking is employed to plug.
Because of this rejection of the atheistic evolution of all species, and the rejection of the corollary gaps in the model that ID tries to fill, YEC is free to interpret nature through supernatural means, immune to the gotg epithet.

It is for this reason that YEC avoids the whole gotg trap that ID inherently falls head-first into.