In about an hour I’m strolling over to be sacrificed in this godawful debate.
It will be recorded, apparently. I’ll see what I can do to get a copy.
I dream of the day when these kinds of debates are banished to the domain of public arguments about whether Santa Claus is real.
It sounds contradictory to combine science and their fake, unscientific ark, but that’s what Answers in Genesis plans to do. They are hosting something called the Answers STEM Challenge, a contest where people stand a chance to make some big money. Here are the prizes:
First place prize—$5,000
Second place prize—$2,000
Third place prize—$1,000
That’s pretty good money for what is basically a sort of science fair. I say “sort of” because unlike most science fairs, the students are told exactly what they have to do, so it’s fairly strongly constrained. Participants must build a wind turbine, which must have:
• Generator (provided)
• Housing (Nacelle)
• Blades
• Tower
• Base
It also must fit on a 1.2m x 1.2m base, so it’s basically a small model that will be propped up in front of fans and the power output measured.
OK, so it’s more of an engineering challenge. It’s also somehow tangled up in their version of Biblical literalism. So far, it sounds like something even I could do: assemble some basic stuff with cardboard and duct tape — or if I wanted to be fancy, build it with acrylic or 3D printing, buy some large propellor blades on Amazon, and show up. The only difficult part would be the electronics…but they provide that for everyone? There doesn’t seem to be a lot of scientific/engineering work involved. There is one obstacle for me, though.
This event will equip and encourage participants to hold to the authority of God’s Word while learning about STEM from a biblical worldview! Form your team, register, and get designing today!
One of the requirements in the official rulebook is : Application of biblical worldview to the design task. Participants are required to explain how their design is Biblical.
Team showed the importance of standing on the authority of God’s Word when faced with complex environmental issues.
Uh, where in the Bible does it talk about wind turbines and electricity and wind power? Or about “complex environmental issues”? The Biblical perspective on environmentalism is that humans must subdue and rule the natural world, and AiG has some rather regressive views on that.
While some, like Dr. Michael Nortcott, think — as he expresses it repeatedly in his recent book A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Global Warming — that we must choose between people’s rising out of poverty and protecting the environment, as if either prevented the other (a bifurcation fallacy), we believe the two are not exclusive alternatives but mutually interdependent. A clean, healthful, beautiful environment being a costly good, and wealthier people being able to afford more of a costly good than poor people, it follows that growing wealth — accompanied by ethics and values informed by Scripture, and in the context of a just civil social order — can protect and improve our surroundings (the real meaning, by the way, of the word environment) rather than degrade them.
I don’t know whether that’s derived from the prosperity gospel or effective altruism, they can be hard to tell apart. I do know that they’re reading an awful lot into the Bible, and I wouldn’t want to contribute to that.
I will be interested to see what ludicrous lump of propaganda wins the contest — it’ll be held in November 2024.
I forgot all about this debate.
These signs will be going up around campus, so I guess I’m committed. Or should be committed.
At least I insisted that “god” needed to be defined, so I’m going to be debating the nonexistence of “an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being.” The other side has to defend the absurdly difficult proposition that such a being exists in the absence of any evidence for it, so at least I’ve got that going for me.
I am going up against a philosopher, though, so I dread the haymaker deepities he’ll throw at me.
I’ve featured Michael Voris several times here — he was the front man for an organization called the Church Militant, a small mob of disgruntled TradCaths, and Voris does a YouTube show called The Vortex which is usually him complaining about the gays, the liberals, the Pope, that sort of thing.
Michael Voris has resigned. Can you guess why?
God Love You pic.twitter.com/SBRFDP9vKD
— Michael Voris (@Michael_Voris) November 21, 2023
I still don’t know. He rambles on about “demons” and “moral failings” and “horrible stuff” without dishing out any details.
Here’s another Church Militant weirdo who makes an empty statement on his resignation. Near as I can tell from this evasive complaint, Voris stopped praying with the staff a few years ago. Prayer is so important! No wonder he lapsed in some mysterious way.
We do know that he was “asked to resign for breaching the Church Militant morality clause,” so there was probably something sordid going on, like that he kissed a boy or donated to a social justice organization or, you know, didn’t pray enough. As much as I would be entertained by a tale of decadence and degeneracy, I suspect that his downfall was brought about by some simple thing that the rest of the world would find quaint, but that his insane community would have been horrified by.
Here’s a fascinating old photo.
Farmer Olof Öhman (center), who reported the artifact’s discovery in 1898, at a carnival held to raise funds to buy a park for the Kensington Runestone, 1927.
I’ve seen the Kensington Runestone, it’s in a local museum just north of here. I’ve been to that park several times — it’s nicely maintained, it has a large, mostly empty building used for presentations (it’s always been locked when I visited), and it’s a bit out of the way, several miles away from a town of any size. It’s notable only because a fair amount of money and time has been invested to enshrine this fraud in local culture. It was probably an even bigger deal in 1927, when that photo was taken, and when the old farmer who ‘found’ it was the center of attention.
What I just learned is that there were other runestones all over the country. There’s the Yarmouth Stone and the Narragansett Runestone in Nova Scotia and Rhode Island. The Heavener Runestone in Oklahoma. The Poteau stone, and Shawnee stone, also in Oklahoma. The Braxton Runestone and Grave Creek Stone, in West Virginia. They even found a second runestone in 2001 near Öhmon’s original ‘discovery’ to ‘corroborate’ it. You’d think there were armies of Vikings tromping all over the eastern half of the US in the 14th century, all busily chiseling rocks and scattering them about to entertain tourists in the 20th and 21st.
The article gives a couple of explanations for this curious phenomenon. One is that the Viking sagas were popular at the time. I don’t find that convincing — you’d expect every literary fad to generate a pile of phony artifacts if that were the case. The second is that the wave of Scandinavian immigrants were trying to build validation. I can sympathize with that a little more. If Italian immigrants could take pride in Christopher Columbus, well, Swedes and Norwegians would hold up Leif Ericson as their hero.
I’m inclined to favor their third explanation.
The third factor was the urge to assert European prior claim to land, which predated the Columbus expedition of 1492, and furthermore, gave it a northern European character. At times, this involved the expropriation of Native American monuments as part of a process which sought to belittle Native American cultural and monumental achievements by claiming Viking ancestry for them—and at times, claimed that those responsible were just about anybody, so long as they were not Native Americans.
The Mormons did it. The Mississippi valley settlers who denied that indigenous peoples could have been the Mound Builders did it. All those batty von Dänikenites who claim aliens built every bit of non-European architecture do it. Why couldn’t my Scandinavian ancestors have done it?
The Runestone park is a pleasant little spot, but fundamentally it’s an embarrassment.
Ken Ham is pissed off at this song from an upcoming Disney movie.
I know nothing about the movie, nor am I interested in seeing it (maybe my grandkids will enjoy it, I don’t know). I don’t think it will turn anyone into worshippers of Sol Invictus. All it is saying is that the world around us is pretty nifty.
Not in Ken Ham’s feeble mind, though.
Imagine if public school students in their science classes were encouraged to worship the sun. And yet this is happening! But how do they get away with it? Well, they just call worshipping the sun “science,” and then claim they can teach this “science” in the public schools! Really the Disney song mentioned above is all about worshipping the sun and stars.
That’s quite a leap, from a cheerful bit of fluff to a sinister plot to inculcate sun worship in public school classrooms. No one is teaching kids to pray to and worship natural objects in the universe.
By the way, he also doesn’t like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
“Our ancestors worshipped the sun. They were far from foolish. It makes good sense to revere the sun and stars because we are their children. The silicon in the rocks, the oxygen in the air, the carbon in our DNA, the iron in our skyscrapers, the silver in our jewelry—were all made in stars, billions of years ago. Our planet, our society, and we ourselves are stardust.”
That statement was made by Neil deGrasse Tyson in the Cosmos series he narrated. Evolutionists encouraged teachers to use this series in public school classrooms.
Oh, how awful: he was suggesting that pre-Christian people were not stupid, and were trying to understand the world as best as they could. Tyson is not an animist. He’s not saying it would be a good idea to worship rocks, but that we should try to understand why some people might have. Damn those public schools! They’re teaching tolerance and empathy! You won’t get any of that in a Ken Ham-approved homeschool.
He really is a fully coked-up conspiracy theorist.
I think it’s about time Christians woke up and understood that even though there are Christian missionaries in the public (Government) school system (and they need our prayers), by and large these schools are actually churches of atheism. Millions of students are being taught that all life and the universe arose by natural processes—by naturalism. But we need to call naturalism what it is—atheism.
Well, so, True Christians™ reject understanding of the natural world? There’s no difference between studying physics, chemistry, and biology and worshipping pagan gods and being an atheist? Good to know.
Please to stay out of education and politics, Ken.
In a totally unsurprising announcement, Ayaan Hirsi Ali renounces atheism and declares herself a Christian. I half-expected this to happen — she’s been working at the Hoover Institute with a lot of wealthy conservative Republicans, it was just going to take time to realize who was buttering her bread. I’ve read her autobiography, and it was clear that what drove her was in large part a resentment of the terrible Islamic authoritarians who controlled her life for so long. Well, now she’s come full circle and is identifying with a different set of terrible authoritarians.
As an atheist, I thought I would lose that fear. I also found an entirely new circle of friends, as different from the preachers of the Muslim Brotherhood as one could imagine. The more time I spent with them — people such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins — the more confident I felt that I had made the right choice. For the atheists were clever. They were also a great deal of fun.
So, what changed? Why do I call myself a Christian now?
Part of the answer is global. Western civilisation is under threat from three different but related forces: the resurgence of great-power authoritarianism and expansionism in the forms of the Chinese Communist Party and Vladimir Putin’s Russia; the rise of global Islamism, which threatens to mobilise a vast population against the West; and the viral spread of woke ideology, which is eating into the moral fibre of the next generation.
Oh. So she has bought into the conspiratorial anti-woke nonsense, and the usual fear-based bullshit that is the foundation of most conservative thought. The communists are coming to get us! Our only hope is to follow a different authoritarian ideology!
But we can’t fight off these formidable forces unless we can answer the question: what is it that unites us? The response that “God is dead!” seems insufficient. So, too, does the attempt to find solace in “the rules-based liberal international order”. The only credible answer, I believe, lies in our desire to uphold the legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
That phrase judeo-christian
always sets off alarm bells in my head. Misrepresenting what atheism is about also doesn’t help.
That is why I no longer consider myself a Muslim apostate, but a lapsed atheist. Of course, I still have a great deal to learn about Christianity. I discover a little more at church each Sunday. But I have recognised, in my own long journey through a wilderness of fear and self-doubt, that there is a better way to manage the challenges of existence than either Islam or unbelief had to offer.
It’s Jeeeesus. Good luck with that, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
By the way, nowhere in her long essay does she say a word about why Christianity is a good philosophy, other than that it’s a platform for fighting against Muslims and woke atheists.
On the one hand, you’ve got powerful chemicals that can be used to make deadly addictive drugs like methamphetamine, stuff made in bulk to be used as precursors to other, legitimate organic chemistry products, so valuable that they get stolen in industrial quantities by criminals (remember the Dead Freight episode of Breaking Bad, in which they rob a train to make drugs?). On the other hand, you’ve got big pharma peddling pills that do absolutely nothing, stuff like Oscillococcinum
, a homeopathic remedy that is sold over the counter at my local grocery store. Add another useless drug, phenylephrine, which is in just about every cold remedy available, partly because the effective medicine, pseudoephedrine, has been displaced by the garbage, since pseudoephedrine was actually desired by meth heads who wanted to cook up meth at home.
Pharmaceutical companies are all about making money, not helping people’s health problems. Take a look at this exposé by Skepchick and Ars Technica — Big Pharma is not your friend. It’s not just the Sacklers and OxyContin, they’re all rotten to the core.
OK, it’s not just Big Pharma. Blame Big Capitalism. The lack of regulation and the ability of the rich to just buy the legislation they want is what’s killing us.
Fortunately, better hygiene and the use of masks has meant I’ve avoided the usual fall/winter colds for a while now.
You know they’ve been lurking there all along. Here’s Ray Comfort, using the ongoing war in Gaza to justify his loony beliefs.
After the horrific attack of Hamas on Israel and the devastating response, it would be easier to floss the back teeth of the lions at the LA Zoo at feeding time than broker peace between Israel and Hamas.
Anyone who could do that would certainly work a miracle. And so, some would say the stage is set for that one man of sin, the Antichrist, who will bring temporary peace between the Arab and the Jew.
Many Christians believe that Daniel 9:27 is a key prophetic verse that speaks of the Antichrist establishing a peace treaty with Israel, which he then breaks.
The twisty part of all this is that the ghouls want a peacemaker to emerge, but only because he will have to betray any resolution. That’s the important part. Their desire is to see the chaos spawning the apocalypse, leading to the extermination of non-Christians. Isn’t it nice that Ray Comfort has cause to find glee in a war?
Some of the philosophy students at my university have asked me to participate in a debate, on my campus, with a fellow named Perry Hendricks. I am like putty in my students’ hands, so I tentatively agreed, with the caveat that I’d like to see what proposition would be debated. The students have come back with their “specific” question. It is…
Does God exist?
I was in the middle of a meeting when that email flew across my view, so it was extremely difficult not to groan aloud and facepalm myself. Just too bleh.
My answer is no, of course, and I assume his will be yes. Are we done already?
The meat of any discussion has to be how that question will be answered, and I don’t see any hint of what approach will be taken, or what the epistemology of any answer will be — it’s just way too broad. I know how I’d approach the question, but I suspect we could easily end up talking past each other.
So now what? Do I say the topic is either ridiculously broad or too subjective and say forget it or go back and revise it, or do I just bull my way through the pathetic question, leaving no survivors?
I’m asking you, the readers, what you think I should do. You know what I think of debates, the only thing that persuades me to do this one is that it’s the students and it’s local.
