In this FAQ from the Center for Science and Culture:
What about the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and its resolution against intelligent design?
In 2002 the board of the AAAS issued a resolution attacking intelligent design theory as unscientific. Unfortunately, the process by which this resolution was adopted was itself anything but scientific. In fact, the resolution was more a product of prejudice than impartial investigation.
After the resolution was issued, members of the AAAS Board were surveyed about what books and articles by scientists favoring intelligent design they had actually read before adopting their resolution. Alan Leshner, the Chief Executive Officer of the AAAS, declined to specify any and replied instead that the issue had been analyzed by his group’s policy staff. Two other AAAS board members similarly declined to identify anything they had read by design proponents, while yet another board member volunteered that she had perused unspecified sources on the Internet.
In other words, AAAS board members apparently voted to brand intelligent design as unscientific without studying for themselves the academic books and articles by scientists proposing the theory. It should be noted that a number of the scientists supportive of intelligent design theory are members of the AAAS, so the AAAS board clearly does not speak for all members of that organization.
Center for Science and Culture (n.d.) Frequently Asked Questions. Discovery Institute. Available http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/. Last accessed 18th Jul 2015.
Charles Q. Choi describes the birth of the universe like this:
The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old — that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age — it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously…
One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos.
It sounds so cut-and-dried…but not compared to the commentary of Brian Thomas:
One way to solve the lithium problem is to jettison the Big Bang theory altogether. Actually, that would fix a long list of problems: the horizon problem, mature distant galaxy problem, dark matter problem, flatness problem, missing antimatter problem, young spiral galaxy problem, inflation ignition problem, asymmetry problem, and star formation problem.
As science progresses, one would think it would increasingly confirm theories like the Big Bang. But instead of solving the Big Bang’s many problems, scientists are only finding more of them. The Big Bang theory has been imploding for decades as scientific experiments and observations continue to confirm Big Bang deal-breakers. And if the man-made narrative of the Big Bang never really happened, then God’s narrative of universal beginnings is back on the table.
- Choi, C.Q. (2015). Our Expanding Universe: Age, History & Other Facts. Available http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html. Last accessed 18th Jul 2015.
- Thomas, B. (2014). Big Bang Fizzles under Lithium Test. Available http://www.icr.org/article/big-bang-fizzles-under-lithium-test/. Last accessed 18th Jul 2015.
Or consider the sweet little old Mormon matron from Salt Lake City headed to Omaha to visit her grandkiddies. Compare her to the twenty-something Egyptian male from Cairo bound for New York City.
Who is more likely to be a terrorist? Clearly, the probability is going to be very low in both cases, but in which case will it be lower? You know the answer.
Liberals know it too, but they don’t want to admit it. The answer doesn’t fit their ‘narrative.’ According to the narrative, we are all the same despite our wonderful diversity. We are all equally inclined to commit terrorist acts. Well, I wish it were true. But it is not true.
Liberals know it is not true just as well as we conservatives do. But they can’t admit that it is true because it would upset their ‘narrative.’ And that narrative is what they live for and—may well die for. A terrorist ‘event’ may well be coming to a theater near them, especially if they live in New York City.
Vallicella, B. (2015). ‘Religious Profiling’. Maverick Philosopher. Available http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2015/01/religious-profiling.html. Last accessed 18th Jul 2015.
On July 8th at 9:00 AM Pastor Kent Hovind walked out of Yazoo City Correctional Facility in Yazoo City, Mississippi, a free man!!
After more than 8.5 years of incarceration, Pastor Kent finally returned home Wednesday evening…
As is his style, Pastor Kent is grateful to God for the opportunity to serve Him in prison, as are the nearly 900 men who came to know Jesus as a result of Pastor Kent’s daily Bible studies in the many prisons amongst which he was transferred. We should all be humbled by this faithful man of God and his never-say-die-commitment to serving Jesus no matter where he is.
I didn’t know that much about Kent Hovind, but here’s an interesting video of him and Bill Nye:
Daubenmire, D. (2015). Kent Hovind is Free at Last. Pass the Salt. Available http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave427.htm. Last accessed 18th Jul 2015.
Stephen C. Meyer was asked about the role of molecular evidence in supporting the case for evolution:
The other problem with this method of investigation is that it begs the question. It says the degree of difference between two proteins or genes in different animals is an indication of how long ago they diverged from a common ancestor. But that they diverge from a common ancestor is presupposed from the outset of the investigation, and it’s presupposed in all the algorithms that analyse and compare the gene sequences. So you can’t use a method of investigation that presupposes a common ancestor to establish the existence of a common ancestor—that’s a question begging strategy.
Meyer, S.C. (2013). Darwin’s Doubt, Intelligent Design and Evolution on C-SPAN Booknotes. Available https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZTzMNRO_7I&app=desktop. Last accessed 11th Jul 2015.
However, this does not mean that the Churches should be silent, for the proposal to change marriage as an institution will affect every marriage. The Government profoundly misunderstands marriage when it speaks of it as having two separate realities, civil and religious. In fact there is only one institution of marriage, a social institution rooted in the union of a man and a woman, which both Church and state recognise and regulate, providing access to it through religious and civil ceremonies. Marriage has not been created by either Church or state, and neither has the right to redefine it.
Catholic Voices (2012). In Defence of Conjugality: The Common-Good Case Against Same-Sex Marriage. Available http://www.catholicvoices.org.uk/sites/default/files/InDefenceOfConjugalityCVBriefPaperMarch2012.pdf. Last accessed 11th Jul 2015.
Speaking in the context of evolution, David Macmillan advises:
Creationists attempt to rewrite the last two centuries of scientific progress in order to avoid dealing with the multiple lines of evidence all independently affirming common descent and deep time.
But does a claim’s support by multiple lines of evidence mean that it’s true?
Speaking in the context of deep time, Henry Morris advises:
When I first became interested in the subject of cosmogony almost 40 years ago, it was widely held that the universe was two billion years old. The most persuasive “proof” of this age was the convergence of several independent calculations on this date. The argument went like this: “Although questions can be raised about the reliability of any one method, the fact that several independent methods ‘agree’ must prove that they are all basically correct. The decay of lead into uranium, the expansion of the universe, and several other calculations all yield an age of two billion years, so this is undoubtedly the true age!”
It is now known, of course, that all these calculations were wrong. In each of the methods, certain assumptions had been made which were later proved wrong.
- Macmillan, D. (2014) Understanding creationism: An insider’s guide by a former young-Earth creationist. Panda’s Thumb. Available http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/05/understanding-c.html. Last accessed 11th Jul 2015.
- Morris, H. (1987) ‘How and When Did the World Begin?’ in What is Creation Science? [ebook]. Revised and Expanded Edition. Master Books, Green Forest, Location 3532.