‘SCIENTISTS’ BALDERDASH BEATS GURUS: An international team of researchers have conducted a survey to see whether people have higher regard for statements made by scientists compared with spiritual leaders, even if the people don’t understand what has been stated. To do this they presented people with apparently erudite statements that were really nonsense generated by a computer algorithm that puts together modern-day buzzwords and technical terms into grammatically correct but meaningless sentences. The statements were neither overtly scientific or religious. The team surveyed 10,195 participants from 24 countries, asking them to rate how credible they found the statements. The sources of the statements were ascribed to either a person with a fictitious name and described as “a spiritual authority in world religions” or to someone else with a different fictitious name yet described as “a scientific authority in the field of particle physics”. Overall, the survey revealed people gave higher credibility rating to the “scientific authority” source than the “spiritual leader”, even by people who identified as being “religious”. The research team called this phenomenon the “Einstein effect” and summarised their results: “across all 24 countries and all levels of religiosity, scientists held greater authority than spiritual gurus”. They then concluded: “These findings suggest that irrespective of one’s religious worldview, across cultures science is a powerful and universal heuristic that signals the reliability of information”.
References: Science Alert 13 February 2022; Nature Human Behaviour published online 7 February 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01273-8.
ED. COM. This last statement may also sound like it came out of the balderdash producing algorithm, but it does make sense if you understand the term “heuristic” which means enabling someone to discover or learn something for themselves. Therefore, these researchers were claiming that people see science, and therefore the teachings of scientists, as the way to find the truth. It is interesting that even people who considered themselves religious put scientists above spiritual leaders. This has provably happened in the Christian church over the past century and a half, as the evolutionary words of Darwin, Lyell, Dawkins and Attenborough and their followers have been elevated above the Word of God on Six Day Creation, Noah’s Flood and other Biblical issues.
It pays to remember that when something is not true, it won’t ever be made true by being said by scientists, no matter how many university degrees they may have. To find the truth you need to go to the One who is the truth – The Lord Jesus Christ. He spoke the truth and backed up His words with actions that only the Creator could do.
Finally, don’t let anyone bluff you with ‘heuristic’ balderdash or big words. If something looks or sounds like balderdash it probably is, and being said by a scientific or religious authority will not change that. God’s Word uses plain language, meant for all to understand. If someone claiming to have scientific or religious authority tries to make it more complicated than it is, or change the plain meaning to suit current popular theories, don’t let them confuse you. If someone tries to bluff you with big words don’t be intimidated. Politely ask them to explain. If they can’t give you an answer in plain language, they probably don’t know what they are talking about.
We were recently called upon to deal with this issue when we were asked about a book by Ken Coulson, a Science PhD who proposed a new theory that to many appears to reconcile Darwin’s and Lyell’s theories with Genesis. The same author also made claims about dogs and evolution. For our response to both his claims see the questions:
What do you think of the book ‘Creation Unfolding’ by Ken Coulson? Is it evolutionist? Answer here.
Dogs have undergone many changes since people have been breeding them. Surely this is evolution? Answer here. Also see the item on dog genes in this newsletter below.
Further questions related to the issue of scientific authority:
A School Chaplain claims students lose faith unless we teach God used evolution. How do you reply? Answer here.
Can you show me one error made by Richard Dawkins? Answer here.‘https://mailchi.mp/creationresearch.net/creation-research-email-update-23rd-february-2022?e=ce21bf0337
Biology
All posts tagged Biology
‘A Christian doctor will challenge a legal judgment which ruled that Christian Biblical beliefs on gender are not “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and are “incompatible with human dignity.”
In 2018, Dr David Mackereth was sacked as a medical assessor for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) after refusing to identify hypothetical clients by their chosen gender instead of their biological sex. He was asked in a conversation by his line manager: “If you have a man six foot tall with a beard who says he wants to be addressed as ‘she’ and ‘Mrs’, would you do that?”
Dr Mackereth, who now works as an NHS emergency doctor, said that in good conscience he could not do this. His contract was subsequently terminated over his refusal.
In July 2019, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, he took his case to an Employment Tribunal in Birmingham claiming harassment and discrimination based on his Christian beliefs. But his beliefs were ruled not to be protected by the Equality Act 2010 for being “incompatible with human dignity.”
Dr Mackereth, 58, an A&E doctor with 28 years’ experience, will challenge the ruling at the Employment Appeal Tribunal on March 28 and 29.’https://christianconcern.com/news/doctor-to-challenge-transgender-compelled-speech/
Here’s what Gordon College states on their website saying ‘Gordon is a vibrant community of believers, a place where Christian faith frames all aspects of the experience—from residence life to athletics to academics. We want students to think deeply and holistically about how their faith informs their influence in society—now and well into the future. Intentional programming and organic relationships propel students to grow in Christian character and deepen their trust in Jesus.’
However, what they state and what they do is different for ‘Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts, this week cancelled three speaking engagements with a speaker who sparked student protests for his alleged “misogynist” and “transphobic” comments.
The speaker, Marvin Daniels—an ordained minister and executive director of The Hope Center—spoke in chapel at the evangelical school on Monday. According to Gordon’s student publication, The Gordon Review, Daniels was scheduled to address the school in three more sessions as part of “Deep Faith Week.” But those were cancelled after students objected to Daniels’ chapel address on social media and announced a walkout.
During his chapel talk, Daniels addressed issues of gender and sexuality, affirming the categories of male and female. Then, speaking about what he called “a culture in chaos,” Daniels added, “We got individuals that say, ‘I feel like I’m a female,’ and they get a chance to participate in female activities. Back in the day I wish that would work. I would have been saying ‘I feel like a female,’ so I can get into girls’ locker room. Come on now.”
Daniels also addressed issues related to dating and premarital sex, stating: “It’s amazing to see that even in the church, my Christian brothers (are) out there treating young ladies like they’re urinals and I am concerned about that.”
He added: “And I’m concerned about my Christian sisters who dress like they desserts on a menu and then they get upset when a brother wants to place an order.”
During the service, students began to react via social posts. “Who does he think he is?” asked one student on Instagram with the moniker ‘Gordon Gossip Girl.’
Another account, @AlanaGordonCollege, posted details of a student rally in solidarity with women and the LGBTQA+ community “traumatized by the degrading statements made in chapel this morning.” It was planned for after Daniels’ session that evening.
A student account stated: “We believe the words Daniels chose to make his point were hateful to both women and the trans community as well as many others . . . We want to show Gordon that they cannot continue inviting someone who will spread more hate than love.”
Shortly after the chapel address, Gordon College president Michael Hammond e-mailed the student body to say he would “personally address” them in a session that evening but Daniels would not.
Billed as a “closed-door meeting,” details of Hammond’s evening talk have not been reported. However, Daniels did not return to the chapel platform the rest of the week.’https://julieroys.com/gordon-college-cancels-speaker-students-protest-misogynist-transphobic-talk/?mc_cid=41f981e31f&mc_eid=b13d34ad49
‘Christian parents Nigel and Sally Rowe have been fighting their case since 2017. Now, finally, a High Court judge has ruled that they can take their case to a judicial review of transgender affirming policies in English primary schools. The evidence of harm that these policies do in schools is overwhelming. Nigel and Sally spoke to LBC Radio about how the 500+ pages of expert evidence is being ignored by the government. Sally explained: “We can see the evidence in front of us now, up and down the country in schools where these policies have been embedded into primary schools; where there has been an actual promotion of this ideology, there has also been a massive escalate of child referrals to the gender clinic – 3000% in a decade.” Nigel explained further: “The problem is that the evidence isn’t really being looked at – firstly by the government, but also most parents and staff are actually ignorant of the evidence, too … they’re just told this is the ideology, we must embrace it.” One such expert, Mr Rogers, a consultant psychologist with 30 years experience in the field of psychology, warned in his report that the Cornwall Guidelines “showed little or no appreciation for the safety and welfare of children.” In his 140-page report, Mr Rogers also made the crucial point that 88% who experience gender dysphoria as children will no longer suffer from gender dysphoria by their mid-30s.’
‘A “canard” is an unfounded story or accusation, often repeated enough that it is preceded by the adjective “old canard,” meaning that it has been fully debunked by all those but people with an impenetrable disinterest in making better arguments.
I was approached by a young person from my congregation who wanted to know how to best handle being called “homophobic” by certain of his peers. I did my best from my phone to explain the apologetic approach to debunk this canard and counter it with science, religion, and reason. But from the moment he asked, I felt compelled to put my arguments in writing to best convey them for the reader because (A) he is surely not the only person who is bullied with the canard and (B) therefore, others might benefit from it.
As a polemicist-pastor, I’m not averse to argumentation nor opposed to it. We are instructed, after all, to give a defense for our beliefs when asked (1 Peter 3:15). This is the part of “disputation” that St. Paul engaged in time after time in the New Testament, and is simply a part of living in world of unfathomably dumb people when our minds have been renewed by the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5).
THE ANTI-ARGUMENT
Bigot. Homophobe. Transphobe. Misogynist. Sexist. Fundamentalist.
APOLOGETIC 1
The first thing a Christian must do when called such terms is to realize that these are insults, designed into bullying one to silence. An insult is meant to shame; it is meant to embarrass, to silence. There are certain cases that name-calling is not insulting, but only when used as a descriptor. For example, if I call the director of the Montana Public Employees Union a communist I’m not insulting her. I’m describing her (she’s an actual Wobbly). If I call a schismatic man a heretic (αἵρεσις), I’m not insulting him – I’m describing him. If I describe a man who just robbed a convenience store as black, it is not an insult; it is a description.
The words, bigot, homophobe, transphobe, misogynist, sexist, etc., are not descriptors the vast majority of the time. They are insults. And, APOLOGETIC 1, insults are not arguments.
For example, if protestors call Ben Shapiro a “fascist” at a university speaking event – shouting down his words so he cannot speak – they are not describing him. They’re insulting him. He’s using his First Amendment rights on public property and politely takes opposing views from the microphone. Those stopping his speech are by definition the actual fascists. Antifa is a group of fascists because they fit the definition of “forcibly silencing the opposition.”
Let’s look at the word “homophobia” for a moment. The suffix of the word, phobia, is Latin, and originates in the Greek, φόβος. While it’s quite possible that online dictionaries may change the definition of this word before I’m done writing the article, the suffix means fear.
I do not fear homosexuals. Online dictionaries have already changed the definition from “fear” or “terror” to “aversion,” but I am using the 1954 Webster’s Dictionary sitting on my desk.* But even that looser definition does not fit. I do not have an aversion to homosexuals. I’ve never changed my seat on a bus, for example, because a homosexual sat next to me.
I do have aversions, however. Even phobias. I am afraid of snakes. I would not sit next to one on the bus. I am ophiophobic. Yet I am not, in any way, homophobic. That is unless one is bleeding, considering their exponentially higher rates of being disease-ridden. But that’s called hemophobia, not homophobia.
APOLOGETIC 2
The notion of individuals name-calling and insulting others is bigoted in and of itself. I am guilty of this. I am bigoted against men in skinny jeans, men with man-buns, people who rely on public transportation, and unkind people. I recently called a woman, “the rhinoceros lesbian” because, thrice my girth, she got into my face and told me to go to hell. I’m human, with feet of clay. I told her, “You are ugly, and your behavior is making yourself uglier.”
My insult was not an argument and fell short of making a salient point. Living on gas station food and a sedentary lifestyle had nothing to do with her spittle sprinkling across my brow, nor did it refute any points she felt that she was making with her screaming insults.
The truth is that many lesbians are ugly women. Knowing they cannot compete aesthetically – and being of shallow character – they refuse to invest in qualifies like work ethic, parenting, cooking, or a sense of humor (things appealing to a man) and instead settle for being rhinoceros lesbians. Yet I’ll be the first to admit my insult made no point.
Those who use the term “homophobia” need to understand the insult, that it doesn’t apply, and that even if it did it would fail to make a salient point. It makes no more a point than the term “rhinoceros lesbian.” The Christian should explain that they fear God, and do not fear people different from them.
*The term phobia comes from Latin in the 1800s, originated in Greek nearly three thousand years ago, and will probably be changed by digital dictionaries to mean, “dislike.” Ignore fake dictionaries. Use ones printed on paper. Words are representations of immutable things or ideas – they don’t change.
WHAT’S YOUR POINT?
This is where the argument gets fun if your opponent stops screaming. It goes like this:
Worldling: “You’re a homophobe.”
Christian: “What’s your point?”
It usually results either in silence, astonishment that you admitted to being a homophobe (notice, you did not), or celebration that you admitted to being a homophobe (again, you did not).
Once their shock or celebration is over, explain that you did not admit to anything but simply asked, “What is your point?” hoping they had a point other than an insult. The point of the exercise is to make them think (and that’s no easy task) what is wrong with being a homophobe, exactly?
In order to admit something is wrong, they must subscribe to a set of moral values or ethics determined by someone (themselves or someone else). After all, the concepts of “right and wrong” are not derived from a naturalistic worldview. They are fundamentally metaphysical, religious ideas.
“Why is it wrong to be a homophobe?” will invoke ponderance (that’s what we’re after). Ultimately, the only answer is that it’s wrong to tell people how to live their lives. This answer is Satanic, but Satan is the basis of their morality (or lack thereof).
The Christian then asks, “Why is it wrong to tell people how to live their lives?“ or “Why is it wrong to judge?” Again, from the worldling will come more ponderance (or screaming, it depends).
The Christian follows with, “Is it wrong to live my life as a homophobe?”
The answer will be immediate, guffawing “YES! Of course!”
The Christian should then ask them for a few moments – a breather – to consider their words and think it through to see if they are right. The worldling will be perplexed and perhaps enthused, possibly thinking they won a convert.
When the time is right, respond, “Here’s the thing. You just told me how to live my life and you judged me.” Follow this up with this phrase, “Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. Your argument, logically, seems to fail.“
At this point, the worldling will either completely disengage (knowing they’ve been bested by a better mind), or they will argue against their original point…it’s wrong to judge homosexuality as wrong, but it’s not wrong to judge your judging as wrong. This is usually followed by a string of invectives. Hang in there.
This is the lesson. They judge just as much as you do, but they judge homosexuality as moral and you judge homosexuality as immoral. Congratulations, you both judge. Now, ask them (since they quoted the Bible) if they would be interested in hearing the Bible. They will say no. Ignore them.
As you prepare to cite your standard for judgment, you must ask them what their standard of judgment is. You might run across someone particularly stupid enough (that’s a description) to cite a partial Bible verse, “thou shalt not judge” (Matthew 7:1) and you must ask them – since they quoted the Bible (for fun, ask them what verse that is) – if they would be interested in hearing the Bible. They will say no. Again – ignore them.
Bombard them with Matthew 7:1-5, John 7:24, Romans 16:17-18, and 1 Corinthians 6:5. Point out that Jesus is the ultimate judge (2 Timothy 4:1) and has condemned homosexuality already. You, therefore, are not judging. You are merely repeating God’s judgment.
TABLES TURNED…
Should the conversation continue, you must now ask them for empathy. Place them in your shoes. Surely hating me for my religious convictions is religion-phobia (theophobia), and makes them a bigot. If their argument is that it’s okay to have a belief but not share it; this makes them a fascist. Ask them to consider for a moment that (A) hell is real (2) homosexuality is a sign one is headed there. Would it not be – at least hypothetically – loving to persuade them away from it? Ask them, “What if I am wrong? Does it make me any less loving? Don’t my intentions matter?”
SHEER BLUNTNESS
If you have come thus far without progress, the Holy Spirit is likely not at work. So get blunt. Homosexuality is a disease-ridden, child-molesting, scat-smothering, disgusting and gross habit. You, as a human being have a right to preferences. You can choose Coke over Pepsi, Chevy over Ford, and the correct orifice over the wrong one. Only a bigot would say otherwise. You believe gayness is grossness. Do you have a right to that opinion? Absolutely.
So say it.’https://fbcsidney.org/2022/01/05/the-canard-of-homophobia-and-how-to-combat-it/
‘Jordan Hall, Baptist pastor and publisher of popular conservative news site, sued for libel by transgender lobbyist
State’s left-wing legal establishment & well-funded LGBT “lawfare” mob seek to stop site’s influential voice
Far-left Judge to hold preliminary hearing Feb. 16 to determine whether pastor is a “dangerous person”
Pastor Jordan Hall with his wife and five children.
A conservative pastor who is the publisher of Montana’s largest and most influential conservative news site is being sued for “libel” by a bizarre transgender lobbyist. The leftist judge assigned to the case is also threatening the pastor with fines and a gag order even before the trial takes place.
This assault on free speech and free press is buttressed by the state’s far-left legal establishment and appears to be funded by the wealthy LGBT and Planned Parenthood lobby. The aggressive legal action, including an invasive “discovery” process of the pastor’s media operation, is clearly aimed to put the conservative news site and its subsidiary voices out of business. The radicals would even like to dictate what the pastor may say in his own church.’ For the entire article go to https://newpatriotsblog.com/
Genesis 2:16-17
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
‘Freddie Mercury posed the rhetorical question “Who wants to live forever?”, ending with the line “Who waits forever anyway?” But scientist and author David Sinclair claims to have discovered why we age and how we could undo that aging.
In his 2019 book, Lifespan: Why We Age and Why We Don’t Have To, Sinclair says that it is a family of proteins called sirtuins which cause us to age. These proteins ought to repair the DNA, but they malfunction, leading to decay of the necessary portions of our DNA. Therefore, Sinclair claims that in the future it might be possible to reverse this aging process.
The Bible has an entirely different account of why we age. It is entirely possible that Sinclair could be right over the chemical mechanism for aging, but that is not why we age. God gave Adam, and therefore Eve as well, a commandment not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and told them that breaking that command would start the process of death. So aging and death are caused by sin. Aging is actually a mercy from God. Immortality, while possessing sin, with all its ramifications, would be a dreadful ordeal – a nightmare scenario. But one day, God will undo death and, therefore, undo aging – not by chemical process but by resurrection to life, for those who have trusted in His salvation, or resurrection to everlasting punishment for those who would not.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/why-do-we-age/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-do-we-age&mc_cid=05b2f77057&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
whatyareckon 