On Creationism

This is basically a post I made on CARM to an idiot who believed in both front-loading AND special creation, who uses the fact that I could not give a response about co-opting to dodge a dozen questions he could not answer. So I gave him the answer. He, of course, still could not answer the questions because... well, creationism. Because evolution is real science, there are a lot of papers on this that make interesting reading. Here is a great one from 2008. By the way, all these papers are from the last twenty years. This is a dynamic and on-going area of research. That is the nature of evolutionary science. Here is the abstract, which I am quoting to highlight that co-option was something Darwin proposed, so the idea is as old as the theory of evolution. Of course, we now have a vast amount of data that confirms it. Darwin believed that evolution generally occurred through a series of small, gradual changes. This proposal was counter-intuitive to many people because it seemed likel...

The evolution of the eye is a popular topic in the creation-evolution debate, perhaps because it is so easy for creationists to quote-mine Darwin on the subject - and credit to Answer in Genesis for acknowledging what Darwin actually said. Here is the full quote, from  The Origin of Species : To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to ...

Christianity insists that both Ezekiel and Isaiah talk about Satan, and use both to contrive the narrative of Satan falling from heaven. The reality is that both passages are about earthly kings. Ezekiel This is the text that is supposedly about Satan. Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your [f]settings and [g]sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. 14 You were the anointed cherub who [h]covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you. 16 By the abundance of your trade [i]You were internally filled with violence, And you sinned; Therefore I have cast you as profane From the m...

Matthew and Luke would have us believe Jesus was both the product of a virgin birth AND a direct line-male descendant of David. They cannot both be true... And perhaps neither are. I addressed the virgin birth here and here . Let us take a look at the other claim. Messiah! The first evidence in support of Jesus being a descendant of David is simply the fact that he was hailed as messiah, and given being a descendant of David was a requirement, this must be taken as evidence that that was the case. How careful were the Jews to trace genealogies? For the priests it was vital to show your eligibility for the job, but I doubt it was important for a carpenter. It is quite plausible people would assume descent. He is the messiah, therefore he must be a descendant of David. Paul Paul gives us this, which seems pretty clear: Rom 1:2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 wh...

 I have just come across a very interesting article,  The Evolution of Creationist Movements by Nicholas J. Matzke One of the most interesting bits is this quote, by William J. Bennetta, president of The Textbook League and a longtime activist opposing pseudoscience in textbooks. He said this in 1988, shortly after the Edwards case that banned creation science: Here are some of the things creationists will be doing most assiduously during the coming decade: [...] The creationists will produce a new version of the pseudoscience, and they will try to induce respectable secular publishers to issue books incorporating the new material. They will hope to use the books for validating their litany about teaching "all the evidence" and for validating the misinformation that they will be spreading among science teachers. Because the term "creation-science" has been sullied most recently in Edwards v. Aguillard, the creationists' new pseudoscience will carry a new name, ...

I watch Atlas Shrugged on a streaming-service last night. This is a three movie marathon, and not for the faint-hearted. I was motivated to do so mostly because the book by Ayn Rand is referenced a lot in the video game Bioshock. Ayn uses the book to espouse her philosophy, which can be considered super-capitalism. Quoting Wiki: Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute". She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics. Philosophy The protagonist is Dagny who runs a railroad company in depression-torn 2017 (the first movie was released in 2011). The company is owned by her brother James, and most of the first two books is about the political shenanigans he, other...

Christmas is but six weeks away, and our thoughts turn inevitably to the dubious claims of a virgin birth... Looking only at Luke's account, it is interesting to note that it is actually consistent with an angel visiting the virgin Mary and telling her she would conceive, Mary then going to tell Elizabeth about it, and staying with Elizabeth three months, then returning home to her family. She then had sex with Joseph, conceiving Jesus with the help of the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. ... 34 But Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I [v]am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the [w]holy Child will be called the Son of God. 36 And behold, even your relative Elizabeth herself has conceived a son in her old age, and [x]she who was called infertile is now in her...