Bully's Blog

Today is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, and evolutionists are celebrating worldwide that they are nothing more than bags of meat and bone with electricity running through them. “Praise Darwin from whom all matter flows!,” their doxology goes. The religious character of Darwin is evident in the way those from the Freedom From Religion Foundation are commemorating his birth. Their billboards look like stained glass windows! Soon we’ll be seeing signs pointing us to First Church of Charles Darwin. Oh, wait, it’s the local public schools.

Gary DeMar  12 February 2009

“A delicious irony Woodward points out is that though the Darwinists have always said that the fossil record problems would decrease as more fossils are uncovered, the situation on the Cambrian is worse now that it was just a few years ago for the evolutionists. Jun-Yuan Chen of the Nanking Institute of Geology began an excavation of Cambrian deposits in southern China, which as they have progressed over twenty years now, produced the ‘the greatest Cambrian fossil bonanza of all time’ (p. 107). The paucity of evolutionary ancestors for these new creatures is more glaring than ever.”

Intelligent debate
A review of Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design by Thomas Woodward. Reviewed by Lael Weinberger

Excerpt from “A Knight of the Mind” — Dawkins, Darwin, and the Battle of Worldviews

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1189

Dawkins is characteristically helpful in exposing the real worldview of evolution. In his words, evolution disproves “the religious theory of intelligent design by God.”

In other words, Dawkins has as little respect for “theistic evolutionists” as he has for creationists. Continue reading

Originally posted 27 September 2008

Rev Dr Malcolm Brown papers over the Grand Canyon at
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html

and CMI critiques his article at
Church of England apologises to Darwin
Anglican Church’s neo-Chamberlainite appeasement of secularism
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6048

“… it is important to recognise that the anti-evolutionary fervour in some corners of the churches may be… an indictment of the churches’ failure to tell their own story – Jesus’s story – with conviction in a way which works with the grain of the world as God has revealed it to be, both through the Bible and in the work of scientists of Darwin’s calibre.”

Rev Dr Malcolm Brown (who looks like a nice man) surely must understand that the philosophy of evolution is exactly the reason for the decline of Christianity in the west, and the rejection of what he calls Jesus’ ‘story.’ It contradicts at a very fundamental level both the Old Testament and the obvious beliefs of Jesus Himself. A child can see that. I recommend the critique of Brown’s article and would be interested to see Brown’s response. Continue reading

I live not far from one of Australia’s most popular tourist destinations, the Three Sisters. This rock formation overlooks a valley with spectacular sandstone cliffs. I climbed the Three Sisters a few years ago – when it was still legal!

Question is, is this valley the result of a little water over a lot of time, or a lot of water over relatively little time? If you look at the fine layers in the rocks, none of them shows any signs of being exposed for long before the next layer was put on top of it. No roots, burrows, etc. None of the disturbance by vegetation that you find at the top of the cliffs.

My friend, geologist Tas Walker, says:

Most visitors don’t realize they are looking at compelling evidence for the global Flood described in the Bible. The sandstone, of which the Sisters are made, points to huge watery deposition. The valleys and gorges, shaped when the Sisters were carved, are evidence of immense watery erosion. The Biblical global Flood explains this deposition and erosion…

You can read his full article here.

and make sure you check out his website, Biblical Geology.

Mike Bull | 3 July 2007

In one sense, giving Richard Dawkins two weeks of air time on ABC TV’s Compass is like putting the tobacco companies in charge of lung cancer research.

In another sense, however, it is quite right that atheism is seen as just another faith. Dawkins’ ‘mount improbable’ illustration of evolutionary theory is really ‘mount impossible’, but he chooses to have faith in it, and admits elsewhere that it cannot be proven. (So much for the mountains of evidence he claims to have.) Evolutionary theory is just another of Dawkins’ ‘orbiting teapots’ that men choose to believe in.

Dawkins also wants us to believe that religious faith is intolerant and leads inevitably to killing. Yet he neglects to mention that his own faith gave us the most bloodthirsty century in history, the death toll estimated at around 100 million, many of them Christians, which is more than the deaths from all the ‘religious’ wars put together. The arbitrary human ‘Reason’ he extolls brought us the guillotine and unprecedented genocide. The hypothesis of evolution brought us eugenics and amplified racism. Christianity, however, brought us an end to slavery, the first hospitals, orphanages and social welfare, and not just because the founders happened to be Christian. These were and still are a direct result of a biblical worldview. Is it any wonder people are turning back to faith? Perhaps we have longer memories than Richard does. He’s like a doctor extolling the benefits of thalidomide to a pregnant woman in 2007. Is he ignorant or deceitful?

Richard argues from a supposed position of compassion and concern for those he ridicules, yet this is inconsistent with his materialistic worldview, and is simply borrowed capital from the Christian worldview he has turned his back on. The only reason he can slap God in the face is because he is standing in His lap. There is no basis in Richard’s worldview for any moral stand whatsoever. Remember, natural selection boils down to ‘might is right’. If we are all just biological accidents, or ‘nature’s way of keeping meat fresh’, perhaps religious killing is merely evolution in action.

Richard is also crafty in his lumping together of Islamic terrorists with Bible Christianity. I am sure he is aware that Baptists don’t fly planes into buildings or Presbyterians strap dynamite to themselves. Both Islam and Christianity have a mandate to dominate the world, but unlike the Koran the New Testament limits the weapons to proclamation, charity and self-sacrifice. Dawkins must know this.

It struck me as ironic that Richard thinks that teaching faith to our children is a form of child abuse, which includes neglect, black eyes, incest and being locked in the cupboard. However, his one-eyed little film displays many obviously happy Christian families, and the bitter ‘free-thinkers’ holed up in the woods appeared to be childless. A politically incorrect but undeniable biological fact is that his beloved secular west is becoming extinct through birth control, abortion and sodomy. If this is natural selection in action, it seems the meek will inherit the earth after all.

by Uri Brito

James Jordan makes some interesting remarks concerning scientific methods and the questions posed by science. [1] According to Jordan, modern scientific assumptions about the present betray the past and an accurate approach to the future. Science assumes that what we have today (referring to scientific discoveries) is exactly as it was in the past. However, scientific questions posed today are vastly different than the ones posed one hundred years ago. What Jordan is questioning with this reasoning is that science cannot be certain of its claims in the present, hence it must be seen with skepticism and understood for its limitations. When scientists claim certainty in their methods, they are in essence claiming ignorance of the lessons of the past and the future. Jordan writes:

The point of all of this is that the past is not subject to the kinds of controls and observation that science requires. Interpreting the past involves guesswork to a far greater degree than observational science, and thus there is far more room for presuppositions and assumptions to play a role. [2]

Jordan argues that unbelievers invariably are prone to wander in their scientific endeavors. Hence, “unbelieving ‘science’ does not perceive the true nature of the universe.” [3] Their worldviews restrain them from seeing biblical truth exchanging it for a lie. Jordan concludes that “when Christians operate on the same premises as unbelievers, they will not perceive aright either.” [4] Is it any wonder that natural theologians have begun to deny the historicity of the Creation account?

Jordan makes one further assertion worthy of consideration. He argues that Matthew 13 provides an excellent example of the intention of the Biblical record. According to our Lord, the parables were meant to reveal truth to believers and to deceive unbelievers. Jordan draws a similar parallel to revelation in creation. “If creational revelation is truly revelation, then it partakes of this same parabolic nature.” [5] As the written word misleads the faithless, so does the natural Word. Any approach that seeks to dispel the account of the Scripture is prone to self-deception.

___________________________
[1] James B. Jordan, Chapter 6, Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One
[2-4] Jordan, p. 126
[5] Jordan, p. 127

or Scriptura sub scientia

The Sydney Anglicans are rightly respected for their stand on biblical authority. But in a recent publication, they call for seeing Genesis as ‘figurative’. Continue reading