I saw a phrase today that made me think--The Darwinist Cause. Now, I'm sure I've seen it or heard it before, but it's one of those taglines opponents to certain worldviews use to instigate absurd debates (which turn out not to be debates but drubbing sessions wherein they hope to…
Dinosaurs did co-exist with Adam and Eve, you see. How do we know this? Just read the Bible!
All of this is cheerfully explained by creationist Ken Ham (who describes himeself as a former high school biology teacher) in a lecture entitled “Dinosaurs In the Bible.” Actually, you can catch a whole series of lectures by Ken at Answers in Genesis.
Here’s some more things Ken taught me. The earth was created in six 24-hour days. Why should we believe that? Because “If we don’t believe in six literal days we open the door to the collapse of Christian morality in our nation.” Furthermore, the numerous scientific methods of dating (such as carbon dating) are hopelessly inaccurate.
There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. We don’t have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world.
Why must people suffer? Because we’re sinful, says Ken. God “loves us” when he inflicts us with horrible diseases like AIDS.
Ever notice those huge sharp teeth of T-rex? What did T-rex eat? No, not meat. Look to the Bible (Gen 1:29-30), not to the teeth, says Ken, and you’ll learn with certainty that T-rex was a plant eater (see “Dinosaurs in the Bible – Part I”).
Ken’s lectures contain plenty of bootstrapping. …
In a political climate drenched with debate as well as petty fighting, many people embrace bipartisan cooperation when it makes one of its rare appearances. A no-brainer of a bill feels like a relief, and it indicates that Congress actually has the ability to conduct business in a productive way. The uncontested passage of a bill feels particularly sweet when the bill deals with an emotionally gratifying issue, like the recent creation of a national sex offender registry.
No one urged President Bush to veto this bill. Named for the America’s Most Wanted host’s kidnapped son, Adam Walsh, this bill had all the trappings of legislative gem: widespread bipartisan support, quick, painless passage, and the emotional pull that only arresting child molesters for 25 years can elicit.
The law establishes a national-level database of past sex offenders’ names and locations. Many states have implemented databases of this kind before, but this law penalizes past offenders more harshly for not providing current information, and increases criminal penalties for child predators as well. It certainly sounds like a Congressional slam-dunk, providing all Americans with more access to information, and better protecting the nation’s children from proven sex criminals. Most people would support such a piece of legislation without a moment’s thought.
But any issue that prompts you to think with your heart rather than your head can have disastrous results. Botched legislation has enjoyed widespread gut-reaction support before, after all. And sex offender registries have not had a shining history.…
Here’s an interesting example on how intuition can go awry. What would you guess to be the primary factor for determining whether a scientist is receptive to new and innovative scientific theories? Education? Economic resources? Gender? None of the above!
In Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics and Creative Lives (1996), a meticulously researched book that has now withstood a decade of criticism, Frank Sulloway concluded that those people who tend to cling to old paradigms, who are not confortable with new innovative scientific theories, have something surprising in common. They tend to be firstborns. Sulloway based his conclusions on the analysis of the written positions of 3,890 persons, writers who have commented over the past several hundred years on controversial new scientific theories.
Firstborns are significantly more likely to “identify more closely with parents and authority,” and more “conforming, conventional and defensive—attributes that are all negative features of openness to experience.” [pp. 21-22.]
Sulloway analyzed the attitudes of the writers of published commentary regarding the theory of Copernicus during the early stages of that controversy:
[I]ndividual laterborns were 5.4 times more likely than individual firstborns to support Copernicus’s claim that the earth revolves around the sun. Copernicus himself was the youngest of four children.
[p. 38] There are many books written for a lay audience on the topic of birth order, but very few of them are carefully documented with statistical analyses. Sulloway’s book is a shining exception to the rule. It is a highly detailed work …
The Founding Fathers of the United States feared the effects of a largely uninformed populous. In the 1700s, Democracy still struck many people as a dangerous proposition, reliant on the education and devotion of the masses. With an unaware voting public, the logic went, Republic could turn to tyranny. We cannot idly expect the government to afford us our basic rights; we instead must always fight to retain them. Thomas Jefferson said it succinctly: “If the nation expects to be ignorant and free…it expects what never was and never will be.” Fellow Virginian James Madison explained it this way:
A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy or perhaps both. A people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
How ironic that Virginia voters have some of the worst access to candidates’ positions of any state in the nation. Public ignorance doesn’t get the blame this time, though. The majority of Virginian candidates up for election this November have neglected to fill out the nation’s foremost position survey, Project Votesmart’s National Political Awareness Test (NPAT).
Project Votesmart launched nationally in 1992. The nonpartisan organization, created by the diverse likes of George McGovern, John McCain, Bill Frist, Michael Dukakis, and Jimmy Carter, aims to create the most comprehensive database of information on candidates bidding for office. Project Votesmart’s website features background information and incumbents’ voting records, vast …