One other special feature of creation is so obvious we often fail to notice it: its beauty. I once took my invertebrate zoology class to hear a lecture on marine life by a scientist who had just returned from a collecting trip to the Philippines.
Toward the end of his lecture he described the brightly colored fish he had observed below the 190-foot level. But then he said that at that depth in those waters all wavelengths of light were absorbed except for some blue. In their natural habitat, the fish could not even see their own bright colors, so what possible survival value could the genetic investment in this color have? Then he challenged the students to pose that question to their biology professors.
When my students asked me, I said something like this: We normally expect to find aspects of beauty as well as usefulness in the artifacts of human creation; perhaps we should expect to find beauty in the creation of life as well.
Morris, H.M. & Parker, G.E. (2004) What is Creation Science? [ebook] Master Books, Green Forest, Location 1146-1165
We need gun control now to save the kids, or at least the ones we didn’t abort…
With all the lip service that gets paid to “equality,” guns are about the best equalizers we currently have, whether you’re dealing with the micro level (a hundred-pound woman with a single concealed-carry pistol to fend off a rapist) or the macro level (over three hundred million guns, legal and illegal, floating amid private hands to counterbalance a super-powerful government’s obscene cache of high-tech weapons).
With all the shrieking we hear about “saving the children,” you don’t hear much about saving them from a government that has already indentured them in the future to pay off its current debts.
‘The Editors’ (2013). Uncle Sam, Give Us Your Guns. Taki’s Magazine. Available http://takimag.com/article/uncle_sam_give_us_your_guns_takimag/print#axzz3dZH5YLtS. Last accessed 20th Jun 2015.
Indeed, atheism itself has a number of propositions that have to be accepted by faith, e.g. that something (the universe) came from nothing, non-living matter evolved into living cells by stochastic chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, morality arose by natural selection, etc.
Cosner, L. (2008). ‘Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God‘ in Journal of Creation. December 2008, pp. 21-24.
One of key myths of humanism is the idea of neutrality. It is held that the mind of man can be neutral with regard to facts and ideas, and that the scientific method is the way of neutrality. Man can, we are told, calmly and objectively approach and analyze facts and arrive at the truth.
Such a view presupposes neutrality in the knower and the known. With respect to the knower, man, it assumes that man is not a fallen creature, at war with his Maker. Rather, man is is held to be a being capable of approaching factuality objectively and impartially, so that the basic judgments about the nature of things depend upon the mind of man.
Rushdoony, R.J. cited in Fernandez, J & Gunn, C. (2012). IndoctriNation: Public Schools and the Decline of Christianity in America. Master Books, Green Forest, p. 364
To those who do not know what the Big Bang is, it is the theory that at some time in the past, now [in 1993] generally believed to have been about fifteen to twenty billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a single mass, which exploded with a “big bang.”
The idea began with a Belgian astronomer, Georges Edward Lemaitre. According to Isaac Asimov, Lemaitre conceived this mass to be “no more than a few light-years in diameter.” At the very least, that would be two light-years or about twelve trillion miles.
By 1965 that figure was reduced to 275 million miles, by 1972 to 71 million miles, by 1974 to 54 thousand miles, by 1983 to “a trillionth the diameter of a proton,” and now, to nothing at all! A singularity!
It exploded, producing hydrogen and helium and perhaps some lithium. Time became the hero and multiple billions of years later it had produced everything in the universe, including Lewis Carroll’s famous “shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings.”
Davidheiser, B. (1993). A statement concerning the ministry of Dr. Hugh Ross. Logos Publishers, Canoga Park. Available http://www.ldolphin.org/bolton.html. Last accessed 20th Jun 2015.
The National Center for Science Education said [science teacher John] Freshwater should never even have mentioned creationism or the theory of intelligent design [in a public school classroom].
[As said by the NCSE] “The theory of evolution is universally accepted by scientists and Freshwater’s ‘alternatives’ to evolution are religious beliefs, not science.”
If an idea is “universally accepted”, does that mean it must be true?
Duigon, L (2014). ‘Fired Christian teacher seeks U.S. Supreme Court hearing’ in Faith for All of Life. Chalcedon Foundation. July/August 2014, p. 25
A reader sent me the following quotation from Peter Kreeft’s Socratic Logic, 3rd ed., p. 36, n. 1:
“The use of the traditional inclusive generic pronoun “he” is a decision of language, not of gender justice.
Changing “he” to “he or she” refutes itself in such comically clumsy and ugly revisions as the following:
“What does it profit a man or woman if he or she gains the whole world but loses his or her own soul? Or what shall a man or woman give in exchange for his or her soul?”
The answer is: he or she will give up his or her linguistic sanity.”
Kreeft, P. cited in Vallicella, B. (2015). Peter Kreeft on the Gender-Neutral Use of ‘He’. Maverick Philosopher. Available http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2015/05/peter-kreeft-on-the-gender-neutral-use-of-he.html. Last accessed 20th Jun 2015.