What Are Ya Gonna Believe?

Today we have another great article at the Christian Post, which describes itself as “the nation’s most comprehensive Christian news website.” They have a comments icon, but it doesn’t lead to any comments. Their headline is Are You a Victim of Bible-Bashing? It was written by Dan Delzell, pastor of the Wellspring Lutheran Church in Papillion, Nebraska.

We’ve written about the rev’s wisdom a few times before — see, e.g.: Science and Religion: The Battle of Two Kings, and also Creationist Wisdom #649: Evolution Is Faith, and also Beware the Folly of Scientism. Here are some excerpts from the his latest, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Do you find it difficult to view Scripture as the infallible Word of God rather than the personal opinion of man? Do you struggle to accept the fact that the Bible is true and completely trustworthy? If so, you are likely the victim of Bible-bashing. [Egad!] Sadly, many people have been hoodwinked by critics who present false information about Scripture.

Have you been hoodwinked, dear reader? Then pay attention. The rev says:

Victims of Bible-bashing are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to grasping the spiritual dynamics all around them. Attempting to discern the truth about God and salvation is next to impossible if you believe the Bible is a flawed document. The alternative of course is to accept this simple fact: “All Scripture is God-breathed.” [scripture reference]


Isaac Newton said, “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.” [Wow!] In addition to being one of the most influential scientists of all time, Newton also understood that the Word of God transcends science because science is incapable of providing you with eternal salvation. While science is definitely a blessing from our Creator, it is far below theology in the grand scheme of things. Science cannot tell you how your sins can be forgiven or how you can be reconciled to God.

Science is so limited! The rev tells us:

If you make the decision to underestimate the significance of the Bible, it is only natural to try to fill the void with something else. And many choose to make science the king of their soul. [The Fools!] Sadly, science has a very poor track record of keeping anyone out of hell and delivering their immortal soul into the perfection of paradise. In fact, there is not one soul in heaven today who was brought there by scientific knowledge or reliance upon science. … Science is clearly unable to provide you with supernatural power, divine revelation, and the forgiveness of your sins.

Fantastic! And persuasive too. He continues:

So that brings us back to the Bible. If you have fallen into a pit created by Bible-bashers [The horror!], you can either choose to remain a victim or you can become a believer. … God gave you free will when He created you. This means that among other things you get to choose how to view the Bible. And the testimony of millions of believers over the centuries is that they were transformed after accepting the Bible as the Word of God rather than the opinion of men.

Why would anyone ignore the testimony of millions of believers? Let’s read on:

When you stand before God on Judgment Day, you will see why the message of the Bible is by far the most relevant and critical communication ever given by anyone, anywhere, and at any time. Just as the Bible transcends science, God transcends our finite and limited thinking. You and I are not all-powerful or all-knowing. The sooner we come to terms with this fact, the closer we get to accepting God’s Word with the faith of a child. That is, the faith quick to receive and believe the message of eternal redemption in God’s love letter to His children.

Your Curmudgeon is overwhelmed! And now we come to the end:

If you have been led astray by false information about the Bible, you can make the decision today that you will no longer be a victim of Bible-bashing. So will you take this step of faith and begin to take God’s Word seriously, or will the Bible-bashers have the final word on the destiny of your soul?

Okay, dear reader, the rev has clearly presented your choices. So what’ll it be — godless science, or The Truth?

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Discoveroids Favor Objective Science — Maybe

You’re familiar with the way the Discovery Institute’s people — and other creationists — think. They rely on intuition — see The Magic of Design Intuition — and analogies — see Watchmaker analogy — and their personal impressions of how improbable the natural world is — see Discoveroids: The Odds Are Against Evolution. That kind of “thinking” leads them to their conclusion that life is a miracle, therefore Oogity Boogity!

This raw Subjectivism is quite unlike the way science works, so you can imagine our surprise at this new post at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog: Yale President Calls for Objectivity in Science Education, written by Sarah Chaffee, whom we call “Savvy Sarah.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A new article in Scientific American argues that “We Should Teach All Students, in Every Discipline, to Think Like Scientists.” The author, Peter Salovey, is notable. He is President of Yale University where he also teaches psychology. He might not welcome my saying so, but his emphasis on thinking critically and examining evidence is spot-on.

What? The Discoveroids favor scientific thinking? Savvy Sarah says:

Salovey wants Superhero Science. The picture with the article is a graphic of a female scientist standing on top of a building [It’s a church!] with her coat flowing behind her like a cape. His hope comes through in his first sentence: “If knowledge is power, scientists should easily be able to influence the behavior of others and world events.”

Ooooooooooooh! Influencing others — that appeals to the Discoveroids — if they’re the ones who do the influencing. She tells us:

The emphasis on “power” and “influencing behavior” sounds like an invitation to scientism, or worse. [Huh?] This innovation, for one, could easily be abused in the service of political and other agendas: [quote from the article]. Yet the article also calls for better science education and education in general. The language is excellent.

Where is Savvy Sarah going with this? She quotes some more from Scientific American:

Knowledge is power but only if individuals are able to analyze and compare information against their personal beliefs, are willing to champion data-driven decision making over ideology, and have access to a wealth of research findings to inform policy discussions and decisions.

What can a creationist do with that? For some reason, Savvy Sarah likes it. She continues:

Yes! Students learning to “weigh the quality and objectivity of data presented to them, and to change their minds when confronted with contrary evidence” as well as to “think critically and imaginatively about the world and to understand different viewpoints” — what a wonderful vision!

Huh? Then she links to the Discovery Institute’s Science Education Policy, which is essentially their demand that schools should Teach the Controversy. Somehow, we doubt that it’s what the President of Yale University has in mind.

Savvy Sarah ends with this:

If applied objectively [Hee hee!], this approach would enhance evolution education along with all parts of the curriculum! What do you say, Dr. Salovey?

The Discoveroids can hope, but we suspect that no one who matters is going to accommodate their desire to teach creationist fantasies as objective scientific theory.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Discoveroids Praise Their Founder

This is a heart-warming post at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute. It’s titled Congratulations to Bruce Chapman, “Godfather” of Intelligent Design. It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Last night we had the pleasure of celebrating a new book — Discovery Institute founder and chairman of the board Bruce Chapman’s Politicians: The Worst Kind of People to Run the Government, Except for All the Others [Amazon listing]. The event at the Rainier Club in Seattle was warm, appreciative, and just lovely.

How wonderful it must have been! Hey — the publisher of that book is the Discovery Institute Press. Very impressive! Then Klinghoffer says:

Intelligent design is a household word today thanks to a band of daring scientists and scholars — and to a prominent and seasoned veteran of a very different art, namely politics. That of course is Bruce Chapman. It’s simple. Without Discovery Institute there would be no modern, sophisticated, and widely circulated theory of intelligent design. And without our friend Bruce Chapman, there would be no Discovery Institute.

Wow — that was an ark-load! For those who may not know, we affectionately refer to Bruce Chapman as “Chappy.” We used to post about his writings at the Discoveroids’ blog, but he’s been inactive lately. For an oldie-goldie from the past, see Bruce Chapman: No Enlightenment, No Hitler.

In the first month of this humble blog we posted Discovery Institute — An Insider’s Tale. It’s very revealing. Unfortunately, the article from which we quoted is no longer available at the link in our post, but we found another: Evolution of a think tank. Let’s return to Klinghoffer: He tells us:

If we have Bruce to thank for the prominence of ID in scientific and media debates [Hee hee!], it’s because of his many virtues. These include a contrarian’s ornery unwillingness to be told what to think, or to let other people be told what to think, a love of argument, a love of ultimate questions, and a passion to nurture others and facilitate their contributions.

What a great guy! Klinghoffer continues:

Oh, and let’s not forget the virtue of courage. We’ve all endured abuse for advocating ID, but as the senior statesman of the movement, Bruce has endured more than anyone else. And let me tell you, he couldn’t care less. One more thing: Bruce is an optimist. To challenge the scientific establishment and expect to get anywhere doing so, you would have to be.

We can think of other adjectives to substitute for “optimist,” but never mind. Let’s read on:

Michael Medved and Steve Buri introduced Bruce at the event, and I think it was Michael who used the term “godfather” to describe Bruce Chapman. That’s a fitting characterization. Neither Bruce nor his Harvard roommate and intellectual co-conspirator George Gilder, who helped him found Discovery, is a PhD scientist. But all the brilliant scientists who have elaborated the case for design and shaken the arrogant confidence of the Darwinists [Hee hee!] would be living very different lives today if it weren’t for Chapman and Gilder.

And now we come to the end:

Those lives would no doubt have been consequential, but in other ways, not this way. And brute Darwinist materialism would be without a serious challenger. What a different and poorer world that would be!

Well, that was a lovely post. Chappy must be very proud of the mighty institution he created, which has brought Darwinism to its knees. Verily, the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design ranks up there with the Time Cube.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Dinosaur Extinction — Asteroid or the Flood?

Get ready for a great lesson in creation science from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. They’re new post is titled Did an Asteroid Impact Kill the Dinosaurs?, written by Brian Thomas. He’s described at the end of his articles as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” This is ICR’s biographical information on him. Here are some excerpts from his fascinating article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

During a recent visit to a church, I told a group of children how and why Noah’s Flood fossilized the dinosaurs. [Hee hee!] A boy told me he saw a documentary that said an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs. Did an impact or the Flood kill them?

Wow — this is an important question. For those who care about the materialist, scientific answer, Wikipedia has an article on the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, but lets stay with Brian. He says:

Three science clues help answer this question. One clue is frogs. An impact powerful enough to demolish thick-skinned, tough, monstrous dinosaurs all over the world surely would have erased thin-skinned amphibians first.

Yeah — why didn’t the frogs go extinct? Here’s Brian’s next clue:

Next, where is the impact crater? An impact large enough to wipe out all the world’s dinosaurs should have left a huge, round pit. Most scientists who study this think a region beneath the southern Gulf of Mexico and northern Yucatan Peninsula represents the impact site. However, others disagree for good reasons.

Brian gives us those good reasons:

For one thing, the underground feature at that site is not round. Plus, an impact with worldwide destructive force would have melted rocks, but the site has very little melted rock. The rocks down there don’t need an impact to explain them. Magma that rose from the depths could have made the rocks the way we see them today. Why should we believe an impact killed the dinosaurs if we can’t find a crater that fills the bill?

For those who care about how scientific fools see the matter, here’s Wikipedia’s article on the Chicxulub crater. Brian continues:

The size and shape of rock layers give us a third clue that the Genesis Flood, not an asteroid impact, best explains the dinosaur fossils they contain. Each of these rock layers can cover thousands of square miles! A single layer can cover several states. … How could an impact way down in Mexico deposit this thick layer so far away? An impact should make a wedge-shaped layer, with mud thinning out from the crater. But actual dinosaur layers keep the same thickness for hundreds of miles. Noah’s Flood could do that.

This is great stuff! Let’s read on:

The Bible says that surging Flood waters took months to cover the whole globe. Sure enough, dinosaurs got buried in mud on every continent. And this Flood happened about 4,500 years ago, not 66 million years ago. [Hee hee!] Science supports this, too.

We’ll skip the creationist clunkers that Brian uses to support that claim and get right to the end:

Did an asteroid impact kill the dinosaurs millions of years ago? No way. Noah’s recent Flood formed dinosaur fossils fast all over the world.

So there you are, dear reader. It was the Flood that killed the dinosaurs 4,500 years ago. Now you know The Truth.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article