Feed aggregator

There have been many claims down through the years by government officials, institutions of: "higher learning," legacy press, and others that they "follow the science." This was the claim by many during the time of holding Americans hostage. Anthony Fauci went from "I follow the science" to "I am the science." This did little more than as citizens; we are expected to follow the scientist, not necessarily the science, and definitely not question their pronouncements. Prior to his passing in 2008, popular author Michael Crichton wrote an addendum to his 2004 best-seller, State Of Fear, titled, "Why Politicized Science is Dangerous." Menno De Boer posted the appendix online under the title, "Michael Crichton: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous.' It is an insightful piece, and although not about Climate Change or Covid, it has applications to both:

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

As Crichton points out, it was embraced, advocated for and defended the ruling elites and thought shapers of the day as "science":

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H.G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address this crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

It was social Darwinism, the "science" of eugenics. the belief that we could advance the human species by weeding out and breading out the less evolved in the species. Blacks, Jews, “feeble-minded’ and other “dangerous human pests.” The ideas were exported and acted on by another world leader in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Abandoning science and following the voice of the scientist can be very dangerous and immoral.

https://mailchi.mp/9e42250641a4/thanksgiving-in-the-midst-of-hardship?e=169825fd77  

When it comes to politics, not all on the "Religious Right" are Christians in the biblical sense of being born again. Even less would be in the Evangelical camp. There is quite an assortment, including the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Mormons and others. So, being conservative and a Christian are not necessarily synonymous. Similarly, being an Evangelical doesn't necessarily mean being a Conservative or one who has their worldview shaped by the Scriptures instead of trying to shape the Scriptures to conform to their worldview. These are important distinctions to make for those who read Jon Harris's Federalist article, "How Trump’s Victory Affects The Civil War In Evangelicalism." The article isn't really as much about Trump as it is about celebrity pastors and leaders like David Platt and Russell Moore who desire to maintain the identification of Evangelicals while working hard to push the church to the Progressive left: 

“Over the past decade, a clear political divide has emerged within American evangelical Christianity. Institutional leaders have increasingly aligned their organizations with the leftist ruling class, while many in the pews maintain more conservative views and resist these shifts. Trump’s recent victory has intensified this balancing act for leaders and further deepened the divide within the movement.

“Signaling approval for the left’s cultural dominance while maintaining Religious Right credentials has never been easy. In the 2010s, the strategy was to expand the definition of pro-life to include issues such as racial justice and left-leaning immigration policies. To pick one example among many: McLean Bible Church Pastor David Platt wrote positively, in his 2020 book Before You Vote, about a Christian who cared about the life issue but would not vote for a Republican pro-life candidate. This is the same D.C. beltway pastor who shut down his church for Covid-19 and marched and spoke at a Black Lives Matter-style protest that same year. Platt, along with many evangelical leaders, gave the impression that Christians were expected to push the needle left on a range of issues while pushing right was, at the very least, optional.

“Platt’s signaling against Trump — when he essentially apologized to his congregation for the “hurt” he may have caused related to issues like “racial division and injustice” after praying for Trump — was only possible as long as theoretical lip service was paid to pro-life and pro-family issues. This allowed evangelical elites to project an image of transcending the political divide, when they were in fact choosing a side.”

So far, it seems that "many in the pews maintain more conservative views and resist these shifts" in spite of the pressure from celebrity leaders to embrace Progressivism. How long that will last is anybody's guess.

https://mailchi.mp/09bad725e3b6/why-christians-need-to-talk-about-video-games?e=169825fd77

Scientism’s pitiful substitute for this very logical declaration is, “In the beginning there was nothing. Once-upon-a-time, ‘nothing’ “gathered itself together, squared its shoulders, and decided to explode. There was a huge noise—and here we are, after billions of years, the proud offspring of a ‘Big Bang.’” Such is the preferred theory of many today, but no one yet has solved the problem of origins. The Big Bang must have required an almost infinite amount of energy. What is energy, and how did it originate? What about life? What is its origin? It is pointless to attempt estimates of the odds of life somehow coming into existence. The law of biogenesis very clearly states that life comes only from life. That brings us full circle: what is life and what is its origin?

The heart of the gospel is redemption, and the essence of redemption is the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ.

― C.H. Spurgeon (19th June 1834 – 31st January 1892. English Particular Baptist preacher. Spurgeon remains influential among, and to some of whom he is known as the "Prince of Preachers").

Can you teach an old insect, or even a young insect for that matter, any tricks at all? Science long assumed that insects were too stupid to learn even simple things. However, researchers have now proven that insects can not only learn, they can generalize knowledge into long-term lessons for life.

Researchers wanted to discover whether insects can learn, through a bad experience, to avoid certain bugs. They offered milkweed bugs to preying mantises. Milkweed bugs that feed on milkweed accumulate milkweed’s poisons in their bodies. The mantises ate one bug, and then vomited it up. Each mantis refused a second helping of milkweed bug. They even rejected bugs that were painted to look like milkweed bugs.

A second test was run to test the response of preying mantises who had never had noxious milkweed bugs. The milkweed bugs they were offered were raised on sunflower seeds so they would have no poison accumulation in their bodies. These preying mantises ate the bugs without getting sick. They continued eating the bugs when they were offered. These test mantises would only stop eating the bugs after they ate one that made them sick.

Learning from experience and later applying that knowledge to similar situations has always been considered a more advanced intellectual function. From the creation point of view, however, these abilities were given even to insects by the Creator because He knew they would need them.

“Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him” (Matthew:6:8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
See All...).

https://creationmoments.com/sermons/smart-bugs/

The first words in the despised and perpetually attacked book, the Bible, just “happen” to be: “In the beginning. . . .” The Bible certainly got that right long before science reluctantly agreed. This is either a massive coincidence, or it alone would seem to be proof that this book was indeed written by the Creator himself. For thousands of years, its wisdom has stood as a challenge to atheists and now to scientists as well. They still have no answer. Perhaps everyone, including atheists, ought to pay attention. The next two words offer the only rational solution to the problem of origins: “God created.”

Richard Dawkins admits that “Darwin’s answer to the question of the origin of species was . . . that species were descended from other species.” This is no answer at all! It’s a far cry from origin of species, as the title of Darwin’s first book promised, and as Dawkins claims Darwin achieved. What was the first species, and how did it come into existence? Darwin doesn’t tell us, nor does Dawkins. Atheism, no matter how scientific it attempts to be, has nothing to contribute to the question of origins. The answer to that question does not lie within the province of science.