Archives for the month of: February, 2014

Here is an education for you:

Wednesday 19 February 2014 Tasmanian researchers have revealed ancient conditions that almost ended life on Earth, using a new technique they developed to hunt for mineral deposits. The first life developed in the ancient oceans around 3.6 billion years ago,

via Evolution stuck in slime for a billion years.

In chapter 7 of what is a rather large report from our National Science Foundation, we find out that over half of Americans accept astrology as at least somewhat scientific.

UPI writes it up here:

The full chapter seven is here (PDF):

All of the material is available here:

Perhaps there is better news in the rest of the files.

This doesn’t surprise me. Similar reports over the last several years have shown the same in Russia (and former USSR). The issue here is faith. We have a diminishing faith in God and the reality of absolutes. We also have a diminishing confidence in science and our ability to know and understand things.

Christians are not all helping, but obviously Christianity cannot be blamed for acceptance of astrology as science.

Our education system is a large part of the problem. As emphasis over “STEM” and other mathematical and science education has ramped up the volume, our actual understanding of such subjects has fallen.

Political pushing of nonsense like Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming fears and demonization of carbon dioxide doesn’t help either. Earth has been warmer and colder, with carbon dioxide levels higher and lower during both. (At different times, of course.) Carbon dioxide is one of the three absolutely essential ingredients to life on our planet. It is at least as important as oxygen and water. And it is far less destructive and deadly in all regards.

It is no wonder the average person holds conflicting and irrational views. Our society, our leaders, our power brokers, and our experts all shovel BS at us constantly. It all depends on the objective of the moment with no commitment to truth, and most people simply take it in and incorporate it in some hodgepodge mashup that is utter nonsense when closely examined.

It is sad that people hold such tragic views in politics as well as science. It is their sad views in politics and social science that will cause them the most pain. Their ignorance in science will not affect most of them. Our refusal to remember the gods of the copybook headings repeatedly causes us pain, and we refuse to learn. (Google “Gods of the Copybook Headings” and educate and edify yourself.)

I’d be remiss to not mention that the churches in the USA are helping mess up our reasoning too. Young earth creationism is false, and those who purport it and other antievolutionary rhetoric are dishonest, and they will answer for their lies when they stand before the Almighty.

We must commit to truth, facts, and thorough thinking. We will continue to suffer while we don’t.

Half-a-billion years ago, give or take, the vertebrates had one nostril and no jaw, just a big, ugly mouth. Google “lampreys” for images. Gross.

Hagfishes are a bit more creative, but just as ugly.

Experts in the field assert that these few jawless uglies were predecessors to the jawed fishes, which of course, were predecessors to the type that crawled out of the water and proceeded to progress and diversify into all the land-vertebrates, and we can thank them for our cute faces.  Read the rest of this entry »

Support the Keystone XL pipeline. It is the enviro-radicals who are causing harm.

Watts Up With That?

Paging Lord Deben

I had debated with myself a couple of days as to whether or not to cover this particular bit of ugliness, after it first being brought to my attention by Bishop Hill. But then, Lord Deben of the UK made this observation:


I challenge Lord Deben to find examples of climate skeptics doing anything remotely close to this sort of ugliness that is much like of the tactics of the Klu Klux Klan – showing up at somebody’s house with mask covered faces, torches, and a threat: 

View original post 299 more words

From an article in the Atlantic:

But whatever their reason for homeschooling, evangelical families who embrace modern science are becoming more vocal about it — and are facing the inevitable criticism that comes with that choice. “We get a lot of flak from others for not using Christian textbooks,” Warton says.

Theologically conservative Christians were not always so polarized. “By the late 19th century,” says David R. Montgomery author of The Rocks Don’t Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah’s Flood, “evangelical theologians generally accepted the compelling geological evidence for the reality of an old earth.” However, Darwin’s idea of natural selection scared away many fundamentalists, who saw “survival of the fittest” as an atheistic concept. Over time, those who insisted on a literal interpretation of the Bible’s account of creation came to reject both geology and evolutionary biology.

The rising number of homeschool families striving to reconcile belief in God with today’s scientific consensus has attracted the attention of at least one publisher — Christian Schools International in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “Most science textbooks that attempt to present the content from a Christian perspective also attempt to discredit the theory of evolution,” says Ken Bergwerff, a science curriculum specialist at Christian Schools International. “Some do it discreetly; others are quite blatant. The CSI science curriculum clearly presents science from a Christian perspective, but does not attempt to discredit the theory of evolution. The content presents God as the author of all of creation, no matter how he did it or when he did it.”

These are very important points. I agree with the article.

I intended to write about this back in March 2013 when it appeared, but I forgot about it.

My comment is that we struggle with this as a homeschool family. It is difficult to find material that honors God and presents sound science. Most of what one sees in homeschooling circles and conventions is entirely unacceptable to us. It is easy to get reasonable reviews about that material, and we can readily tell it is not acceptable. It is harder to find reviews of other curriculum material. Sound science is hard enough to find. Wanting sound theological content too requires research and piecing things together.

Updated, see below:

Here is an exercise in rationalization for you:

The Bible talks a lot about camels:

According to the Bible, camels were common and known throughout the Old Testament to the people of the covenant, at least from the time of Abraham circa 2,000 BC.

Oops. The camel bones indicate there were no camels until nearly 900 BC, well into the time of the Kings.

It took me a bit to find, but here is the published article: Read the rest of this entry »

It behooves anyone who cares about our children and our schools to read this article:

No improvement in education is possible while compulsory laws stand. We must start by repealing truancy laws. Then we can start in the direction Ms. Chadwell indicates.

Dr. B. describes the #hamonnye debate about the way I see it so far. I will watch it again to better evaluate. I challenge you to read this article, and perhaps peruse his other resources on his blog.

Letters to Creationists

On the evening of Tuesday, February 4  Answers in Genesis president Ken Ham debated Bill Nye at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, on the topic “Is creation a viable model of origins?”   This event was watched by at least 3 million viewers on line.

So, how did it go?  This NPR link gives a text summary (in reversed chronological order) of the phases of the debate, and a link to the complete 2:45 YouTube video of the debate.

Secular commentators seemed to come away pleased with Nye’s performance. For instance, Jennifer Welsh collected tweets which summarized Nye’s best lines, in a short article titled “Bill Nye Dominated His Debate Against Creationist Ken Ham.”

Rebecca Savastio provided a short synopsis of the debate which is a useful window into the affair, though her write-up is clearly biased against Ham. She concluded, “In the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate, the…

View original post 3,238 more words

I’ve stood against young earth creationism nearly 50 years. I’ve stood against global warming alarmism for over 20 years. They are the same thing. Both are committed to agenda driven ideology with no commitment to truth, facts, and verifiable observation.

The #hamonnye nonsense yesterday was as bad as I suspected it would be. I missed too much of it while driving kids to say much, but I expected Nye to be shallow. He was. I expected Ham to focus on the trivial and to equivocate. He did.

Truth! Above all. I saw very little truth from Ham. Very sad, especially since he is a professing Christian. is a truth-committed source of information.

Like me, they expressed little hope regarding the #hamonnye event.

They have addressed the result here:



Peter Leithart calls Noah’s ark a floating ziggurat. Nice. He notes these points of comparison found in the book The Tabernacle Pre-Figured by L. M. Morales.

Morales summarizes the evidence that the ark is to be understood as functioning like a temple, even if we can’t say that it is a temple: It is like the cosmic mountain that emerges from the waters; it is measured and set apart; it becomes a place of sacrifice; it is filled with animals. As Morales notes, the ark gradually ascends to heaven as the waters increase, life the ark above the highest mountains (159). There are multiple verbal connections between the ark-building project and the tabernacle-building later in the Pentateuch. The ark thus does what all temples are supposed to do—it joins heaven and earth.

People who know me probably won’t be surprised to find out that his blog post reminded…

View original post 250 more words

It seems to me, culturally, we most suffer from moral idiocy.

We each understand intelligence innately, the same for knowledge, as well as emotion, and especially for morals. IQ, EQ, and MQ? Works for me. 100 is the nominal IQ mean, median, and mode. Anyone far off from that gets called names. Of course, everyone would like to be called the one name, but nobody likes the other.

EQ, well, I haven’t seen standardization on that. I think it is mostly a learned intelligence anyway. We learn emotional skills by growing in loving families, with good, upright friends, and by going through hardship in life with the honest, caring support of these friends and family.

I’d say the same goes for moral intelligence, but that is much less subjective. We know what is right. Read the rest of this entry »

People talk about “giving back” when they mean charity. It isn’t giving back. No one took it from the recipients in the first place. If they did, we shouldn’t be letting anyone give part of it back; we should be locking them up and getting it all and giving it all back. Madoff is a good example, though I think he and his cronies made off with most of it before we caught him and took it back. Regardless, no one lauds Madoff for his charity work. Giving back or not, he was just a crook.

A Mr. William Yavelak wrote on the subject over at He describes his writing as a rant. I suppose. Still, it is cogent. I recommend the article. Go ahead; click the link and read.

As Mr. Yavelak points out, the problem is that antihuman, progressivist thinking of modern liberals has permeated and corrupted most of our society and language. We must actively resist the collective. Each must stand on his own; ladies, you too. No chauvinism here. We are all in this together. The Borg of big government statism will devour us all without discrimination. No point in pretending there are discriminators in our older language usage when such was so obviously rare.  Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: