March 6, 2009
If the “customer reviews” at amazon.com about Ray Comfort’s new book were written by people who actually read the book, it appears that Mr. Comfort’s biggest fans are primarily of the ‘angry skeptics’ variety. You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics has been tagged by them (as of the writing of this post) with such terms as strawman (72 times), illogical (73 times), lies (66 times), and my personal favorite: breathtaking inanity (83 times).
Logically, one would reason that if the book is really filled with “tiresome” and “sad arguments and lies” as some of the angry skeptics have written in their comments, they wouldn’t be snapping it up en mass as they claim. Of course, Ray’s new book may not be as popular among the angry skeptics as their comments seem to suggest. If that’s the case, most of the ‘customer comments’ were actually posted by people who really didn’t read the book. A fact that, if true, would make them a bunch of narrow minded bigots who are evidently more threatened by what they perceive as a challenge to their faith than by the actual content of the book.
Either way I guess, as Ray Comfort’s new book aptly demonstrates, that You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think.
February 10, 2009
“[Ernst] Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany…. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science – all contributed to the rise of Nazism.” (Stephen J. Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977).
“Thus there results the subjection of a number of people under the will, often of only a few persons, a subjection based simply upon the right of the stronger, a right which, as we see in Nature, can be regarded as the sole conceivable right, because it is founded on reason.”(Adolf Hitler)
“The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.” (Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947).
February 10, 2009
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (Richard Dawkins)
Darwin’s theory is a friend to atheism. Instead of a purposeful Creator as the explanation of life on earth, atheists argue we are the product of blind, physical, evolutionary processes. There are two choices. We are here on purpose or on accident. But isn’t one of these beliefs going to lead to entirely different actions than the other? Absolutely. Make no mistake, ideas have consequences.
Have you heard of Jeffrey Dahmer? He was a brutal serial killer who murdered 17 men and boys from 1978 to 1991, sometimes cannibalizing his victims. In a prison interview with Stone Phillips of Dateline NBC, Dahmer was asked why he did what he did:
“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…”
After hearing Dahmer’s words, no one can claim evolution doesn’t matter.
Download It’s a Dead Man’s Party for the rest of the story.
(HT Stand To Reason Blog)
February 1, 2009
According to this article, the “theory of evolution itself is evolving”. Which, when you think about it for more than a half second, makes one wonder why Darwinists insist that evolution “isn’t just a guess or a hypothesis but a widely accepted explanation of natural events supported by the best available evidence”. After all, a theory that is still evolving is also one that is less than settled. This probably accounts for the willingness of the Darwinian hegemony to be increasingly dependent on court rulings, rather than scientific consensus, to validate and enforce its increasingly untenable claims within the scientific and educational communities. Considering that the major tenants of Darwinian evolution are now being abandoned quicker than a jackrabbit running from the nose of a shotgun, it’s surprising that any credible scientist would make the statement that "we understand evolution pretty well”.
The truth is that aside from court enforced obeisance to evolutionary theory and Darwinian hegemony in the scientific community, evolutionary theory is still little more than speculation and it is certainly not understood. Consider, for example, the abandonment of Darwin’s Tree of Life which roots, branches, and limbs are as still unconnected today as they were in 1859 even after more than a hundred and fifty years of frenetic research. On the other hand, the newer “web or bush” model now favored by evolutionists eliminates the pesky need to link evolution to something resembling proof because, as the article points out, it allows for a blurring of the “sharp lines between species”. In other words, the need to demonstrate descent by small incremental changes occurring continuously over long periods of time is, under the new model, unnecessary. Evolution is so because it is said to be so, not because it is scientific, intelligent, or rational.