Blogs 4 Brownback

March 23, 2007

Another Excellent Science Read

Filed under: Democratic Idiocy,Family,Science — Sisyphus @ 11:21 am

Here’s a science website that’s not afraid to tell the Truth: that the answers are found in the Bible.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.

The Darwinists lie when they claim that their answers are the only interpretations of the evidence. The fact is, the Bible is a far more reliable source of interpreting the evidence of the world around us. If you don’t believe me, give this website a gander. They have all the answers. Straight to the blogroll with this!

UPDATE: Read this analysis of the Second Law of Thermodynamics- and prepare to have your socks blown off, Darwinists.

15 Comments »

  1. Although my last reply to one of these anti-evolution posts seems to have been screened out, I will mention again that you should acknowledge, as a self-proclaimed Catholic, that the Church does NOT teach creationism and oppose evolution. If these are your personal beliefs, you should represent them as such, the Catholic Church is not fundamentalist. It befuddles me in any event why such postings are repeated on “blogs 4 brownback” as it could only harm his political chances. I suspect he would not support such outlandish claims as creationism, which again, is NOT the same as intelligent design, which the Church does support.

    Comment by Noonan — March 23, 2007 @ 2:02 pm | Reply

  2. I don’t know what could have happened to your previous comment. It wasn’t screened out on purpose as far as I know. It’s not in moderation. So I apologize if it disappeared.

    This is Blogs 4 Brownback, and not Blogs of Brownback, so posts reflect the views of individual posters and not necessarily those of Senator Brownback.

    As I am not the resident science wonk, I’ll let Sisyphus handle his own response. 😉

    Comment by Psycheout — March 23, 2007 @ 5:17 pm | Reply

  3. “Although my last reply to one of these anti-evolution posts seems to have been screened out, I will mention again that you should acknowledge, as a self-proclaimed Catholic, that the Church does NOT teach creationism and oppose evolution. If these are your personal beliefs, you should represent them as such, the Catholic Church is not fundamentalist. It befuddles me in any event why such postings are repeated on “blogs 4 brownback” as it could only harm his political chances. I suspect he would not support such outlandish claims as creationism, which again, is NOT the same as intelligent design, which the Church does support.”

    I’m trying to hold out a light for the true teachings of the Church, which had been forgotten to a large extent. I don’t know what the nuns taught you, Noonan, but from mine I learned to disagree with atheistic evolutionary teachings, as contrary to the book of Genesis and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It seems that Pope Benedict agrees with me:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 23, 2007 @ 9:24 pm | Reply

  4. I may not know much but I do know my cousin isn’t no monkey. Stupidest crap I ever heard. I don’t care what the Pope guy says, I was created by God. I didn’t climb down from the trees.

    Comment by JOE — March 23, 2007 @ 11:46 pm | Reply

  5. Here’s what Brownback has to say about it, Noonan:

    There’s intelligence involved in the overall of creation. . .I don’t think we’re really at the point of teaching this in the classroom. I think what we passed in the U.S. Senate in 2002 is really what we should be doing, and that is that you teach the controversy, you teach what is fact is fact, and what is theory is theory, and you move from that proceedings, rather than from teaching some sort of different thought. And this, I really think that’s the area we should concentrate on at the present time, is teaching the controversy.

    – Senator Sam Brownback, Larry King Live, CNN, August 23, 2005”

    In other words, exactly where I am.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 24, 2007 @ 10:49 am | Reply

  6. That’s a great science read! Maybe next week the Brownback campaign could give us some tips on how to transmute Earth into Fire!

    Comment by "Science" Wonk — March 24, 2007 @ 2:32 pm | Reply

  7. A golf clap for the Science Wookie.

    Comment by Red State Guy — March 24, 2007 @ 4:38 pm | Reply

  8. Sisyphus, I read the article you linked to but if anything I think it exemplifies what I am trying to point out. Also, your position seems to very significantly differ from not only the Church, but from Brownback on this one. The Church, and apparently Brownback as well, support “intelligent design”, whereas you are speaking of creationism.

    The difference is that intelligent design theory recognizes that God may have created the world through the process of evolution, and 7 days at the world’s beginning may not equal the same amount of 24 hour long days now. Indeed, advocates of intelligent design point out that the order in which things are posited to have happened in evolutionary theory parallel the order in which they happen in Genesis. While the Church criticizes atheistic evolutionism, this is a criticism towards those who claim that evolution would be random and without God’s direction and design. The Church does not forbid people from believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis and denying evolution (creationism), but it does not encourage it either. Both JP II & Benedict XVI seem to be on the same page in supporting intelligent design.

    If I have misunderstood where you are coming from, I apologize, but I get the impression you are supporting creationism and both equating intelligent design with intelligent design and atheistic evolutionary theory with all evolutionary theory.

    While I have no problem with presenting all 3 theories in the schools, I think it is dangerous to make these equivocations as I have seen young people who make this same mistake lose faith in the face of what must feel like overwhelming scientific evidence. While I admire your apologetics zeal, I would urge you to be careful in making sure you understand these distinctions.

    Our fundamentalist brothers and sisters, whom I also admire, deny evolution in toto through a fundamentalist Scriptural interpretation and reject the past 2 great pontiffs’ explanations on these matters. The Catholic Church rejects sola scriptura however and recognizes the teaching and interpretative authority of the institution of the Holy Catholic Church, from whom the recognized canon of Scripture comes in the first place. For this reason, I think “the true teachings of the Church”, as you put it, afford Catholics the latitude to believe in intelligent design.

    p.s. I wasn’t taught by nuns but did go to 12 years of Sunday school then majored in Religious Studies.

    Comment by Noonan — March 24, 2007 @ 5:48 pm | Reply

  9. should have read “…equating intelligent design with creationism…” Sorry about that, usually I double check my posts before posting.

    Comment by Noonan — March 24, 2007 @ 5:50 pm | Reply

  10. Isn’t so-called “intelligent design” just a sciencey veneer over good old creationism? Frankly, I don’t see the difference.

    The fable in Genesis tells us that God created the world and everything in it in seven days. Species exist in the form in which God created them.

    The unprovable fairy tale of “Intelligent Design” claims that a designer (ie, God) created all existing species the way they are now and set in place the rules governing how they evolve over time.

    Same story, different approaches. I think Noonan is splitting hairs. He’s making a distinction without a difference as far as I can see.

    Interesting discussion though. Do you have a website where you discuss these issues, Noonan?

    Comment by Buddy — March 24, 2007 @ 6:26 pm | Reply

  11. I don’t really know too much about this subject, but it sounds like Sisyphus and Brownback are basically in agreement. Although I’ll agree the discussion is interesting, but not really compelling. To me anyway.

    Comment by Anti-Media — March 24, 2007 @ 10:44 pm | Reply

  12. Buddy,

    Although I have a couple of blogs I run, neither of them really relate to this topic. Intelligent design is not a veneer of creationism, however. The difference is important. While both theories recognize God’s pivotal role in creation, “creationism” believes the world is about 6,011 years old through a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. “Intelligent design”, by contrast, posits that the world is billions of years old and affirms the evolutionary process throughout history. Intelligent design is different from “atheistic evolutionary theory” in that while the atheist approach would be to say that random forces brought order forth from the chaotic disorder and caused the big band, the intelligent design theory would recognize that all of evolution is part of God’s complex plan.

    You also misunderstand intelligent design to say that God created all the species as they are now. This macro-evolution v. micro-evolution distinction would belong more to the creationists. Intelligent design recognizes that some species have died out and others evolved along different evolutionary tracks. This should make sense to anyone who watches animal planet or the old Mutual of Omaha’s wild kingdom.

    Comment by Noonan — March 28, 2007 @ 4:10 pm | Reply

  13. Although my last reply to one of these anti-evolution posts seems to have been screened out, I will mention again that you should acknowledge, as a self-proclaimed Catholic, that the Church does NOT teach creationism and oppose evolution.

    By the way, I just wanted to point out that your comment probably wasn’t screened out. One of us may have just neglected to unlock it from moderation. We would only delete comments that are blatantly offensive, and your comments have obviously been very reasonable and polite. So, if you submit a comment and it doesn’t show up, please jump up and wave your hands (an “Ooo! Mistah Kottah!” might not hurt, either)

    Comment by Lyssie — March 28, 2007 @ 7:35 pm | Reply

  14. For this reason, I think “the true teachings of the Church”, as you put it, afford Catholics the latitude to believe in intelligent design.

    That’s really the fascinating thing about the Bible: each person views it through the prism of their own experiences. It is so incredibly universal, and much like life itself, what you get out of it is what you put into it. As for myself, I have my own faith, and there are certain things about God and life that I believe. I prefer to keep those beliefs to myself as much as possible, however, as I feel that one’s faith is a true reflection of one’s inner being — which is something that I do not always feel comfortable sharing with strangers. I do have a certain amount of amused disdain for those who think that they know all the answers. Whether your beliefs come from Darwin or Deuteronomy, there are still mysteries that are beyond the realm of human comprehension, and that will always be beyond the realm of human comprehension. We can either rage against the mystery and try to fill it in with hypotheses or articles of faith, or we can embrace it and marvel at it. Why do we seem to think that we NEED all of the answers?

    Comment by Lyssie — March 28, 2007 @ 7:42 pm | Reply

  15. People who don’t even understand evolution, one of the simplest mechanisms in nature shouldn’t quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics (I’m a physics student, I passed my thermodynamics class, so don’t go saying I don’t know what I’m talking about.)

    I’ve been to AiG and I could debunk 95% of its content within minutes, it’s mostly filled with obsolete theories, out-of-context-quotes, misunderstandings of complex scientific theories and even plain lies.

    I also find it odd that some people choose to reject most of science but still quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which ties in heavily with other areas of science.

    For the record, the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t debunk evolution, it simply says that the universe is not infinitely old, and thus in no way contradicts the Big Bang.
    It also doesn’t say anything about a “creator”, that’s just a misunderstanding, coming from people who don’t understand the meaning of entropy: the law actually says: the total entropy of an isolated system (note that the Earth is not an isolated system, but the universe is), that undergoes a change cannot decrease.

    Entropy does not mean disorder in the common-usage sense of the word.

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 11:55 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: