latest

One thing I have been increasingly taking notice of is how e-skepticals - you know, the "science, reason, facts and logic" crowd, people you can easily find at internet communities such as "Fundies Say The Darndest Things", "RationalWiki" and basically most left-wing forums - tend to be extremelly vain, ego-driven and arrogantic. For instance, let's illustrate this with a hypothetical situation: imagine it's scientific consensus that a few million years ago there was a frozen continent named "Lumumba" and that a random man named Edmund contests the existence of Lumumba; according to the skepticals Edmund is a mentally unstable idiot whose brain lives in an alternative reality. At a first glance it could seem fair to regard him as such, he's in disagreement with thousands of individuals who are educated on that field after all, right? However, let's take into account that Edmund currently has no means to verify these claims by himself (like most people) and it basically has no relevance at all to his practical life; having that in mind, one should start to question if it really makes sense to mock and belittle that person. Why must he believe what a bunch of people with diplomas tell him on the matter in order to not be deemed as intelectually inferior? If having an inquisitive mindset is so valued and praised by the "facts and reason" crew then why people like Edmund are supposed to just accept everything scientists say? Why does that say anything about his mental health if believing or not believing in Lumumba causes literally zero negative impact in his life or in the lives of others? The whole issue here comes down to the fact that these skepticals aren't really interested in promoting scientific thinking and skepticism but rather in feeding their own ego and trying to affirme themselves as smart and enlightened in comparison to the "idiotic science-denying bigoted cranky fundies"; that's why you have youtube videos with titles such as "physicist reacts to flat-earthers" and websites such as the ones mentioned at the beggining (RationalWiki and FDST), it's all a huge group session of intellectual masturbation.

And no, I am not strawmaning, that hypothetical situation is based-off something quite similar I saw on a FDST thread: it was a comment that labeled anyone who took Pink Swastika (a book about alleged homosexuals in the Nazi Party and the connection between homossexuality and the fascist ideology) seriously was clinically insane. I mean, really? The view one has about things that happened more than seven decades ago in another continent is really so relevant to the point of determining their mental health? I can kind of understand cases like the mockery of flat-earthers (well, actually I don't, thinking that the Earth is flat causes no damage to anyone, so why not just let them have their belief instead of starting this whole outrage?), since it's actually possible to verify by yourself that the Earth cannot be flat (for example, by looking at the clouds in the sky or realizing that people in other countries are under different time-zones), but having this same attitude towards something so inexact, imprecise, malleable and distant such as the study of the past is an attestation of arrogance.

"You clearly don't understand how science works, the scientific method is extremely rigorous and scientists have to stand scrutiny from their peers in order to have their findings accepted as factual. If you have doubts about a certain topic you can simply study and verify it by yourself" Ok then, I will study it by myself and come to my own conclusions, but until I'm in my right to have doubts and having them instead of just blindly accepting everything the scientific community says (like, let's be honest, everyone does) doesn't make me intelectually inferior to anyone. However, let's not ignore that it would take me years and years of study to "understans" just one specific topic, that I would still have to just accept as true everything that my peers from the hundreds of other fields say (no, you can't seriously expect someone to specialize on everything in a lifetime, come on) and that even in my own field I would have to assume as true the countless premises that it's based upon (for example, an archeologist has to accept this or that method of dating as the most precise so everything he has learned so far can make sense - this example may not be accurate but I just wanted something to illustrate what I meant)

"Yikes, the Dunning-Kruger is strong on this one. Ok Mr. Nuanced Contrarian, so if all doctors said that taking poison is harmful for your well-being and may possibly culminate in your death but a local charlatan claimed it would give you superpowers then you would take both claims as having the same weight just because you can't verify it by yourself first?" No, I would absolutely stand with the doctors on that one; however, that's not because they are science-people but rather due the fact I know from my own experience that poison is harmful (by seeing all the cases of people who took it and experienced negative effects). So yes, I agree that it's stupid to do certain things when you can verify with YOUR OWN EYES that it won't have a good outcome (not vaccinating your kids, for example)

"We know that science is accurate because it works" Why? Where that implication comes from? Just because a certain institution or group of people creates things that work and improve our lives it doesn't necessarily mean their explanations and theories behind their "inventions" are true; if that is the case then the healers of some amazonian tribe are correct in their beliefs about spirits just because some of their cures are effective?

"If you are so against science then why don't you just drop your phone, leave everything behind and go live in the wilderness?" Again, why? Where that implication comes from? Just because I don't accept as true some explanations of reality that the scientific community come up with it doesn't mean that I think everything related to science is evil and that we should reject all of it's inventions

"You are thinking of scientists as 'the others' when in reality they are just people like you. Also, it would make no sense for scientists to try hiding something from the public when in fact they would receive prestige for exposing the findings of their peers as false" Well, what if they are indeed 'the others'? I mean, who knows? There could be a lobby to push for some agenda or a certain conspiracy to cover something up; this may sound like silly conspirationism but you can't really know for sure. As for the "scientists will seek to disprove their peers instead of covering them up" part, it's just an assumption, there is no reason to say that scientists will necessarily have such mindset; it can be true but it could also be true that anyone who questioned the consensus would risk getting ostracized or even losing their diploma and their source of income - I mean, who knows?

"Science may not have the answers for everything but that doesn't mean your cranky nutjob theories are on the same level of accuracy and respectability" Well, that's a "case by case" situation since there are many different "cranky nutjob theories" out there, but to spare some words and space let's say that such affirmation is mostly true. What then? Just because the alternative theories are wrong it doesn't mean all criticism is invalid. Furthermore, you have to have in mind that different worldviews often come from differing premises and assumptions; science, for instance, is based on methodological naturalism, the assumption the explanation for every topic investigated must be a natural/material/non-supernatural one, while a religious person, for example, takes into account the existence of the divine and thus will likely come up with an alternative and supernatural view of the same phenomenon (what you mockingly label as "goddidit"). Yes, these people have a faith they embrace and because of that they think differently, what's your problem with that? Why can't you just let them be? Oh, I forgot: you guys are desperate for self-affirmation and in constant need of feeling smart and enlightened in comparison to the "cranks, bigots and fundies", right?

C	O	V	I	D	—	19
H R I S T	V E R	I R U S E S &	N F E C T I O U S	I S E A S E S		Joshua 1:9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.

—

H
R
I
S
T

V
E
R

I
R
U
S
E
S

&

N
F
E
C
T
I
O
U
S

I
S
E
A
S
E
S

Joshua 1:9
Have I not commanded you?
Be strong and courageous.
Do not be afraid;
do not be discouraged,
for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.

I once posted a long comment on a similar article by Randy Alcorn entitled: Do you believe God created the universe in six literal (24 hour) days? I certainly do. I really am not concerned with how many (is it 38%) “evangelical Christians are compromising the truth of God’s Word regarding the sex literal (24-hour) days of creation in Genesis by bowing down to scientific opinion (“from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolution) that accommodates millions of years to the days of Genesis rather than the clear,straightforward , literal meaning of six literal (24-hour) days in Genesis. There is no warrant biblically, scientifically or linguistically for doing so (from the perspective of the ancient Hebrew language). I have posted many long comments why I oppose theistic evolution (accommodating long ages to the literal days of Genesis) as not biblical. Jesus Christ himself accepted the Genesis account of creation (Matthew 19:4), including the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve, as well as the biblical account of Noah’s Flood (which would radically alter everything modern uniformitarian geologists have learned in Geology) as historical fact (Matthew 19:: 4, Matthew 24:37-39). We should not be surprised by this when we remember that, though many leading scientists (i.e. “scriptural geologists”) resisted the “old earth” ideas of James Hutton and Charles Lyell (Uniformitarianism) and defended scripture as both true and scientific, Regrettably, it was Christians, not evolutionary scientists, who first lead the charge against scripture, beginning in the 1800s when theologians (theistic evolutionists) readily adopted the “old earth” ideas, of Lyell (uniformitarianism) instead of Noah’s Flood. The Bible believing scientists of the day were in a difficult position of trying to defend scripture when even theologians (who compromised the literal history of Genesis) were against them. The situation remains even worse today, despite recent scientific discoveries about the universe, atom, the internal structure and incredible complexity of cells, DNA, the natural world, etc. Believing scientists, though understandably still in a minority, are leaving Darwinian Evolution, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. Unfortunately, though they have grown weary of arguing how random mutations (essentially harmful to a living organism) in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements to it (no functional genetic information-increasing changes on which “goo to you” evolution depends). So, what do they do? They re-adopt Creation, but still hold on to the old earth and formulate a local Flood account to fit modern uniformitarian geology. How much better it would (and I believe employ better science) to come all the way back to a biblical worldview (instead of just a halfway or middle position between biblical creation and natural evolution (Theistic evolution).. See other comment below:

One could write a book on why it is imperative that Bible-believing Christians not compromise the historical truth of Genesis 1 ( i.e. Day-Age theory, Gap theory, Framework Hypothesis theory) by adding or accommodating evolution to the Genesis account. First, theistic evolution, which is just evolutionary development with God added on, is diametrically opposed to supernatural, ex nihilo (out of nothing), , fiat, (divinely spoken Word\) creation, which even Darwin, who was also a divinity student, rejected: In a letter he wrote to Charles Lyell in 1861, he stated: “The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the new species out of the range of science” . Not only was theistic evolution rejected by Darwin, but also was never seriously considered by the other founding fathers of evolution. The evolutionary claim of an old earth (4.5 billion years old) denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis regarding the order of creation (contrary to evolution, the Bible says birds were created on Day 5 at the same time as the sea creatures –before dinosaurs and other land animals; the Bible says the work of shaping the earth was finished on Day 3 before the moon was made on the 4th day into earth’s creation, not smashed from the earth in a cataclysmic collision; etc.), the distinctness of created kinds (10 times in Genesis 1), the absence of death and bloodshed before the Fall (see Genesis 3; Romans 5:12), the instantaneous creation of Adam and Eve and all of creation functionally mature (which explains the appearance of age), the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the creation week (Genesis 1:31), the great longevities of the patriarchs, and the global nature of the Flood, as attested by over 200 Flood traditions by peoples all around the world, over 30 scriptural references (indicating universality of Great Flood), and layers of water-deposited sedimentary rocks containing separate and distinct and intact kinds of fossilized plants, birds, animals, etc. (not transitional or intermediate fossil) all over the earth.

Every major doctrine of Christianity stands or falls upon the historical foundation laid in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Obviously, if death were here eons before Adam sinned (Genesis 3), as evolution requires, then creation had already been spoiled and death is not the penalty for sin, as scripture plainly teaches (Genesis 2:16; Romans 5:12). This, in turn, means that Christ’s death and resurrection were ineffective and meaningless, and the biblical teaching (Romans 8:18-23; Rev. 21) of the final restoration (Paradise Regained) of this fallen world to its original state before the Fall (only much more magnificent and glorious)–no sin, no death. no curse–is sheer nonsense. Dr. James Barr, formerly Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University and renown as one of the world’s leading Old Testament Hebrew scholars , wrote, “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that that the writer (s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.” The word “day” (Hebrew yom) associated with a numeral (i.e. “first day” “second day,” “third day” in Genesis 1 (and that used 359 times in the Old Testament outside of Genesis 1 ) always means a literal 24-hour day.

To make sure that no one missed the obvious meaning of a literal 24-hour day, the writer (s) of Genesis 1 under inspiration of the Holy Spirit further qualifies “first day, ” “second day” etc. with “evening and morning”–“and the evening (that part of the day associated with darkness) and morning (that part of the day associated with light) were the first day” (“second day, “third day” etc.). But many who are easily embarrassed (yes, that includes genuine Christians and theistic evolutionists like Dr. John Lennox, astronomers like Hugh Ross and others) by the opinions of secular scientists concerning the unproven assumptions of radiometric dating (which has been off by hundreds of thousands/millions of years, even on rocks of known age) will claim that Genesis 1 and other creation passages are myths, parables, poetry, dramas, allegories or analogies–the only exceptions to the perspicuity of scripture and cardinal rule that “context defines the meaning of a word”—anything, in order to escape the obvious fact that they are written, and read as, a straightforward historical narrative.

Even such astounding scholars as Dr. E. J. Young of Westminister Seminary in Philadelphia, an authority of massive erudition in Hebrew and cognate languages holds that “Genesis is not poetry. There are poetical accounts of creation in the Bible–Psalm 104, and certain chapters in Job, and they differ completely from the first chapter of Genesis. Hebrew poetry had certain characteristics, and they are not found in the first chapter of Genesis.” He further states: “The man who says I believe that Genesis purports to be an historical account, but I don’t believe that account” is a far better interpreter of the Bible than the man who says, “I believe that Genesis is profoundly true, but it is poetry”. The inspired, infallible Word of God trumps the opinion (actually “faith”) of fallible scientists, my friend. Don’t undermine or sell out the firm foundation (Genesis 1-11) on which your Christian faith is based, my friend, for the favor and praise of men. God will reward you in due time for your faithfulness to His inspired, infallible Word. God bless.