Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Triumph of naturestition over reason

It seems science has come full circle. In the middle ages one widely accepted scientific (not religious) explanation for how things like rats or flies existed was the idea of Spontaneous Generation. Due to a desire for a more verifiable and rational explanation, this idea has been thoroughly discredited throughout the centuries. Or so we thought.

Stephen Hawking now declares God did not create the universe and the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. On the argument’s surface some question arise, such as how do any laws of physics exist without a physical universe to govern? Or, how would physical laws have been established when nothing exists and why would those laws be necessary? How would we know that physical laws preceded the physical universe, rather than the other way around? Or, how is the idea of the universe creating itself out of nothingness any less ridiculous than the notion of an intelligent being creating it? Both notions seem utterly absurd, yet it seems one must be true; thus the endeavor to prove God unnecessary no matter how foolish the explanation.

God did not create the universe, says Hawking
September 2, 2010 by Michael Holden

In “The Grand Design,” co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes.

It seems difficult to see Hawking’s argument as anything less than wishful thinking backed up by a faithful adherence to an anti-theistic paradigm. We are now told the more rational (“rational” being so often treated as the opposite of faith) argument for explaining why anything exists is Spontaneous Creation, the cosmic equivalent of Spontaneous Generation. Is this idea a scientific breakthrough or a betrayal of reason itself? I look forward to reading the book when it is made publicly available.

anti-religion, atheism, bias, creation, ideology, philosophy, religion, science, scientists

Filed under: anti-religion, atheism, bias, creation, ideology, philosophy, religion, science, scientists

“MISSING LINK” FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?
May 19, 2009

Meet “Ida,” the small “missing link” found in Germany that’s created a big media splash and will likely continue to make waves among those who study human origins.

Ida: the Missing Link at Last?
May 19, 2009

For all the headlines and proclamations, this “missing link” story includes an amazing amount of hot air.

Even Darwinists doubt latest ‘missing link’

June 3, 2009 by Pete Chagnon

A spokesman for the Discovery Institute says the alleged “missing link” find is nothing new.

missing link bigDiscovery Institute senior fellow John West says the recent fossil hailed as the missing link between humans and primates is nothing more than “hype.” The fossil known as “Ida” was recently unveiled during a press conference in conjunction with a book, website, and a documentary that aired on The History Channel.

“And it’s interesting if you actually look, many evolutionists themselves are saying that this was just hype,” he contends. “Because in fact, evolutionists themselves cannot agree on what this is supposed to be a missing link to.”

creation, evolution, fossils, news, science, scientists, propaganda

Filed under: creation, evolution, fossils, news, propaganda, science, scientists

Scientists Tell Texas: Time to Evolve
science, education, evolution, creation, news, scandal, oppression

Now hear this: you are not permitted to question evolution

March 24, 2009

Several leading scientists have sent a letter to the Texas State Board of Education urging board members to reject an amendment that attacks one of evolution’s key principles, that all life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor.

Among other things the pending amendment says students should “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency and insufficiency of common ancestry.” But scientists say there is no real argument about common ancestry, one of the foundational concepts of evolution.

Filed under: creation, education, evolution, news, oppression, scandal, science

Fossils: Fact or Fallacy?
science, evolution, creation, fossils

December 16, 2008, by Sean McDowell

While the fact of ape-to-human evolution is not as simple as she made it out to be, she was right about one thing: fossil reconstructions of ape-like creatures fill museums throughout the world (they also fill your biology textbooks). The idea that ape-like creatures morphed into upright walking humans is one of the most common examples given to support evolution. Yet despite the popularity of the ape-to-human story, the evidence is not as straightforward as it appears. Let’s consider three key problems with the evidence for ape-to-human evolution.

One problem with common knowledge is that once the myth is propagated it is extremely difficult to correct. The news story below describes “Lucy” as a human ancestor with many ape-like features, rather than actually an ape. Upon closer inspection it seems Lucy is actually just a ape, not an ape-human hybrid.

The Shoe Fits! 1.5 Million-Year-Old Human Footprints Found

February 26, 2009, by Jeremy Hsu

Filed under: creation, evolution, fossils, science

The Creationist and the Sociobiologist: Two Stories About Illiberal Education
science, scientists, evolution, creation, creationism, law, litigation, abuse, constitution, separation, education

1992, by Phillip E. Johnson

There is a mad reductionism at work [in the universities]. God is not a proper topic for discussion, but “lesbian politics” is…. In the famous “marketplace of ideas,” where all ideas are equal and where there must be no “value judgments” and therefore no values, certain ideas are simply excluded, and woe to those who espouse them.1

In a liberal culture, it is a great rhetorical advantage to appear in a dispute as the champion of free speech against the forces of repression. The left has held this advantage for a long time. The student revolt of the 1960s opened with a “Free Speech Movement,” and the bumper sticker that directs us to “Question Authority” implies that the left’s politics is a matter of raising questions rather than imposing answers. Recently, however, academic traditionalists like Dinesh D’Souza have seized the moral high ground by describing a left-imposed atmosphere of “political correctness” in the universities that leads to “illiberal education.” In effect, they have captured the bumper sticker and turned its message around.

Filed under: abuse, constitution, creation, creationism, education, evolution, law, litigation, science, scientists, separation

Evidence of God in Human Physiology–Fearfully and Wonderfully Made
science, evolution, creation, creationism, scientists, research

by Phillip Bishop

Dr. Phillip Bishop is professor of exercise physiology at the University of Alabama. Bishop has served as a visiting scientist in the NASA Exercise Countermeasures Program at Johnson Space Center, Houston.

Filed under: creation, creationism, evolution, research, science, scientists

My Views on the Evidence for a Created Universe
science, evolution, creation, intelligent design

by King David 8

Please note that this site is not a defense of Young-Earth Creationism, a belief I do not happen to agree with. This is simply a defense of the idea that our universe was created by an intelligent designer. I would like to note that I used to be a Naturalist (one who believes that the universe had no intelligent creator), so I believe that I understand the arguments for both sides to a fair degree.

There are really three parts to the Creationism question.
1) Did the universe begin to exist?
2) What can we logically and scientifically conclude about whatever force (if any) caused the universe to exist?
3) Does the ‘God of the Bible’ fit the criteria for whatever force caused the universe to exist?

Filed under: creation, evolution, intelligent design, science

The Miller-Urey Experiement Natural or Unnatural?
science, evolution, creation, creationism

We’re told that life on Earth formed first with no oxygen (02), but that this early life then produced the oxygen required for life as we know it today. Does the Miller-Urey experiment offer a “natural” explanation for the beginnings of life? Take a look and decide for yourself:

Filed under: creation, creationism, evolution, science

Creation Mythology:
Defenders of Darwinism resort to suppressing data and teaching outright falsehoods

science, fraud, evolution, creation

June 24, 2000, by Nancy R. Pearcey

For example, the textbook the school requires Mr. DeHart to use presents Stanley Miller’s 1953 life-in-a-test-tube experiment as evidence that the building blocks of life arose spontaneously in a “primeval soup” on the early earth. But today most biologists dismiss that experiment as outdated, since it relied on assumptions about the early atmosphere now known to be false. An article in Scientific American tells the story, yet the school forbids Mr. DeHart to tell students how science has corrected itself.

Again, the most famous example of natural selection involves the speckled peppered moth. Supposedly, when industrial pollution darkened tree trunks, birds could see the lighter moths against the blackened trunks, while darker moths blended in and increased in numbers. Yet a recent article in The Scientist reveals that these moths don’t even rest on tree trunks-and that photos shown in textbooks were staged: Dead moths were glued onto tree trunks. Yet the school forbids Mr. DeHart to correct this false impression for his students.

Miller Urey experiment

Filed under: creation, evolution, fraud, science

Some Useful Information About Origins for Students in Undergraduate Biology Classes
science, education, scientists, evolution, creation

Robert DiSilvestro, Ph.D.

Undergraduate biology classes often make statements about origins of life, species or even the universe. In many cases, these statements seem to remove the need for any involvement of a creator God. However, the credibility of many of these statements can be called into question. Below, I provide some short pieces of information that can be used to pose such questions.

The Urey & Miller Origin of Life Experiment
The Big Bang and the origin of the universe
Direct evidence for design in the origin of life
Evolution as an observable, undisputed phenomena
The fossil record and Darwin
Punctuated equilibrium and the fossil record
Human embryos and stages of macroevolution

Filed under: creation, education, evolution, science, scientists




April 2020