Recently, some friends on social media compared the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity, suggesting the evidence that supported both was equally strong. The question was then posed by me: what evidence would be required before we might reasonably begin to question the theory of gravity? Can exceptions exist? The answer to my question seems rather obvious--if Newton's apple fell up toward the sky instead of down, for example, that would contradict the theory of gravity. We should begin to question the consistency of gravity if observations from multiple, credible witnesses claimed that objects or people either floated or flew in the air without using wires or other special effects to create a clever illusion. This "law" of gravity is easily testable: simply drop something from your hand, and it will fall to the ground. The evidence for gravity is so powerful that I can remember even as a young child (who still believed in Santa Claus) thinking the premise of the television show The Flying Nun was absolutely ridiculous...that because she only weighed 90 pounds and wore a cornette on her head, Sister Bertrille (Sally Field) would literally get blown off the ground by a strong wind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CojNHPD_cOU Frankly, the idea hasn't really improved with age--it's about as believable as Mr. Ed, the talking horse, but not half as funny. From where do such silly ideas come? As for The Flying Nun, the inspiration was a book called The Fifteenth Pelican. But from where might author Tere Rios have gotten the idea of writing a novel about a … [Read more...]
Falsifying evolution
The Zapata footprint According to Karl Popper, the ultimate test of whether a theory was scientific or philosophic was whether or not the theory could be falsified, meaning it could be tested according to the scientific method and theoretically proved to be untrue by solid contradictory evidence. J.B.S. Haldane once joked that the best evidence to disprove Darwinian theory would be a fossilized rabbit in Precambrian rock strata, because rabbits allegedly didn't "evolve" until several hundred million years after the Cambrian extinction event had elapsed. Haldane didn't realize it at the time, but his joke has ultimately shown that Darwinian evolution cannot be falsified. The theory of evolution has become the equivalent of religious dogma that simply cannot be challenged or questioned. Consider the Zapata footprint above. If the print was found on a sandy beach, no one would question for a moment whether it was a genuine footprint created by a human being. However, this particular print was discovered in rock allegedly 250 million years old. Scientific tests should be able to provide a reasonably accurate age for the rock, and additional experiments should be able to demonstrate how the footprint could have been faked, assuming the fossil is not genuine. Likewise, the image below allegedly shows a human footprint and a dinosaur footprint fossilized in the same layer of rock. Perhaps there is some plausible explanation for these fossils, and they only look like human and dinosaur footprints that are neither deliberate frauds, nor what they appear to be. Or … [Read more...]
Thoughts on The Living Cosmos by Chris Impey
Science is a discipline that theists should be able to enjoy and appreciate--after all, theists invented science in their quest to learn about God. Science should not seen as a potential threat to religious belief. Anyone who claims that science somehow eliminates any need for a God simply doesn't understand existential science very well. Over the past decade or so, I've read a number of "popular" books about biology, paleontology, cosmology, Darwin's theory of natural selection (or "evolution") and other related topics in a personal quest for answers to my personal philosophical/existential questions: Who am I? Why am I here? How did I come to exist? When contemplating those questions one must also ask related questions like: How was the universe created? How did life originate? These latter questions are considered scientific by nature. Of the numerous books I've consumed on related subjects, among the very best I've read was a book titled The Living Cosmos written by Chris Impey, an astronomy professor at the University of Arizona. While I disagreed with some of Professor Impey's conclusions, he is without question an extremely talented writer. He mixes in plausible-sounding scenarios that create vivid imagery that convey his secular ideology regarding religion and evolution, whether he's providing a fictionalized account of the martyrdom of Giordano Bruno or one of an asteroid strike causing the K-T extinction, while grazing dinosaurs remained oblivious to their imminent doom. Professor Impey very accurately described the highly improbable cosmological … [Read more...]
Common descent versus common design
My latest "Eureka!" moment while arguing that Charles Darwin's famous theory of common descent with modification is actually a rather pathetic explanation for the modern diversity of life came when I realized that the work of Gregor Mendel had been purloined by evolutionary biologists and made the centerpiece of their argument. Clearly, Mendel's research into genetic recombination demonstrated how descent with modification produced variety in plants, and it stood to reason to assume that the same sort of variety was produced by sexual reproduction by animals. Indeed, anyone brave (or foolish) enough to express skepticism at the idea that Charles Darwin's theory explains the origin of new species had better be prepared for an unprecedented degree of anger, scorn, ridicule, and frequent suggestions to consider remedial biology classes. The question remains: does Mendel's work truly explain the origin of new species, or is that explanation flawed? The idea sounds preposterous on the surface, sort of like the plot of a bad science fiction movie titled Planet of the Furless Apes. Darwin famously scribbled "Monkeys make men" in one of his notebooks to capture the idea that modern evolutionary biologists might call "changes of accumulations in allele frequency changes", which is a fancy way of saying that humans evolved from apes when certain DNA patterns become dominant while others become recessive. Humans lost their fur, grew physically smaller but developed bigger brains, simply because we could. It is theoretically possible, and the only other potential explanation in … [Read more...]
The sigil of Baphomet
You probably won't recognize his name, but in late September Jordan Hunt was the man caught on video kicking a woman while she peacefully protested against abortion. If you haven't seen the clip already, I've embedded it below for your convenience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkrNVol0UAo If you just watched the video, I hope you noticed how Hunt prepared himself to strike that the 34 second mark, but didn't actually deliver the blow until two full seconds later. He took his time and telegraphed what he was doing. Hunt immediately claimed it was an accident and that he only meant to kick the phone from her hand, but it's difficult to give this repeat offender the benefit of the doubt. You see, this wasn't the first time Hunt physically assaulted an abortion protestor. One month earlier he had been identified on another video as the man aggressively charging into the street to attack a different female abortion protester over a sign she was holding. Hunt has been arrested by Toronto police and charged with eight counts of assault. He'll have his day in court. However, I don't want to talk about the assaults or the motivation for them (abortion) at the moment. I want everyone to look at the necklace Hunt is wearing in the video. It's a pentagram. Coincidentally, the official symbol of the Church of Satan is an inverted five-point star called the sigil of Baphomet, as shown below. The sigil also adorns the cover of The Satanic Bible. It's a very important symbol to Satanism. Granted, Hunt may not even realize what he's wearing. The camera never gets … [Read more...]
