Halloween (it’s hallo, as in “hallowed be Thy name,” not hollow) brings out talk about departed spirits and the afterlife. With all the preoccupation about materialism and evolution, there is still the need for spiritual things because we are made that way. People looking for a way to fill the spiritual vacuum left by atheistic materialism want to do it on their own terms, even if what they advocate is more science fiction than true science.
“Soon…prospective parents may be able to choose between an embryo that could become a child with a lower risk of colon cancer who is likely to be fat, or one who is likely to be thin but has a slightly elevated risk of Alzheimer’s, or a boy likely to be short with low cholesterol but a significant risk of Parkinson’s, or a girl likely to be tall with a moderate risk of diabetes.”
The latest environmental prediction is that planet earth has about ten good years left. ” I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change … no longer than a decade, at the most, ” says James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Ours is an era when myths, legends, and conspiracies abound. Much of the dubious credit for this phenomenon is probably the result of the ever-present Internet. Mythological concoctions travel at the speed of light and find their way to open email inboxes where unsuspecting and gullible readers embrace them as the gospel truth.
Can machines, either organic or inorganic, be “guilty” of performing any wrongs or praised for doing what is “right”?1 If there is no mind independent of the brain, then man is at the mercy of an uncontrollable brain that emits charges of energy indiscriminately. How can man be held responsible for his actions under these circumstances? Such a question leads to an ethical impasse.
The Intelligent Design movement is making its way through the schools and the courts. Even traditionally unscientific-minded Christians are embracing ID because it seems so rational and obvious. As expected, the materialists are running scared.
For years, we have been told that creationists don’t do science. The reason that they “don’t do” science is because they are not published in peer-reviewed journals. If they were, so the logic goes, the peer-review panel would be able to rip their research to shreds and expose for all to see that creationists don’t in fact understand science.
In the 1986 film, Highlander, the main character is a member of a race of men that are immortal. The only way that they can die is by being decapitated. Because of this, the immortals always fight with swords.
Christians begin with the presupposition that God created the universe and created man as a special creation different in kind from both inanimate and other animate creations. In fact, man is so special, the Bible tells us, that he is the very “image of God” (Gen. 1:27). One of these image attributes is the existence of the mind and the ability to think rationally (Col. 3:10) and to act with a moral sense (Eph. 4:24).
Have you ever wondered why people don’t understand things the way you do? The facts are there for everyone to see and comprehend. So what keeps them from believing? At one level we know it’s a spiritual problem. In some cases God blinds their eyes (John 12:40) or hardens their heart (Ex. 4:21) so they will not understand (Matt. 13:13). In other cases God gives “them over to a depraved mind” (Rom. 1:28).
The Popular Mechanics’ version of Moses parting the Red Sea is inventive but not very original. Liberals have been pushing the strong-wind view for decades. It goes like this: “Because of the peculiar geography of the northern end of the Red Sea, a moderate wind blowing constantly for about 10 hours could have caused the sea to recede about a mile and the water level to drop 10 ft., leaving dry land for a period of time before crashing back when the winds died down.”
National Geographic has produced a series of special programs called Science of the Bible where modern technology and research are used “to explore a wide range of biblical accounts including crucifixion, faith and healing practices.” I’m suspicious. I’m all for science, but the people at National Geographic are secularists.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is blaming the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina on climate changes that are the result of the United States’ unwillingness to be trapped by the provisions of the Kyoto Treaty. I find it interesting that Kennedy and other secularists have no problem believing that “Mother Nature” is in the judgment business, but an all holy God is not.
H.G. Wells (1866-1946), author of a number classic science fiction works, most notably The Invisible Man (1897), The Time Machine (1895), The First Man on the Moon (1901), and The War of the Worlds (1898), was not what one would describe as a religious man. He reports in his autobiography that he lost his religious faith when he was about 12 years old. He was an outspoken advocate of Darwinism, socialism, eugenics, and an advocate of “free love.”
Over the last two weeks we have surveyed the philosophical and unscientific nature of both evolutionism and creationism. We have seen that neither one belongs in the science classroom, because both of them are much bigger than simply theories or beliefs about the origin of life. They are foundational assumptions that entire worldviews are built upon and, as such, are outside the realm of “science” as it is classically defined. But does this mean that Christians should not be involved in the field of science? Of course not, in fact, it is only because of Christianity that science can be “done” in the first place.
For the past 10 years, proponents of man-made global warming have been "cooking the books" to further their agenda. They use selective data sources to support their claims while ignoring data from the same sources that would prove them wrong. In short, the whole global warming issue is a global scam.
The debate in Columbus’ day was not over whether the Earth was flat or round. Rather, the width of the ocean was the crucial factor; the distance between continents determined the cost and feasibility of an expedition. "The issue was the width of the ocean; and therein the opposition was right." Columbus had underestimated the circumference of the Earth and the width of the ocean by a significant number of miles.
The modern mind cannot bear the thought that people who lived far before the twentieth century could have gotten anything right about science. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica perpetuated the myth of a flat-earth cosmology: "Before Columbus proved the world was round, people thought the horizon marked its edge. Today we know better" (1961). The people of Columbus’ day knew better.