Sunday, August 21, 2005
Links from today’s radio show...
Start with the Fair Tax website. An intriguing proposal and an easy to read book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder, is also available at this website. Is the Fair Tax worth the effort? I’m investigating that. I'll probably have more to say about this in the near future.
Information about Larry Pratt’s radio show is available here.
The City of New London sinks to new lows in the Kelo/eminent domain fight. Not content with the unconstitutional decision they secured, they’re charging “back-rent” – 5 years worth – against the plaintiffs, wiping out their remaining equity. Learn the details here.
And then, take action here.
You only have to scroll down to the August 17 entry in this blog to see how I arrived at my decision that, “evolution is the best explanation presently available to explain our natural history.” One caller suggested that he can see design by looking at his own hand. Indeed.
I lacked time to fully respond (if you’d like to sponsor another hour, because I could certainly use it, let me know at jimbabka at jimbabka dot com). You can hear what I said about the Big Bang on today’s show once the archive is up and available (coming soon), and why it’s fully plausible (likely in my opinion) that there was a Being (God) who set the universe in motion and wrote its laws.
But I really encourage you to read the Fr. Edward Oakes articles to see why there’s a difference between “design” and “order” (I’m not going to give you the links here, because I really, really want you to go through my August 17 blog entry, and you can find them there).
Here’s my dirty oversimplification:
Anything that makes copies of itself (reproduction) is going to be different from the original. Some of those differences in the copy are going to be worse, and some better. Nature tends to preserve the superior copies and eliminate the inferior ones. And to that, even Intelligent Design doesn’t really object. They just call the part they agree with, micro-evolution. Where people get in trouble is that they look for an analog in the man-made mechanical world, and we haven’t yet made reproducing mouse-traps or watches.
Science is not a sufficient tool to tell us what happened before the Big Bang - to determine where the universe and natural law came from. But what happened after the Big Bang is traceable, and is becoming better known all the time because of science.
Intelligent Design suggests that “some intelligent entity” fills the gaps that science cannot explain. Still, most Intelligent Designers believe the Earth is billions of years old and refuse to say who this intelligent entity might be. They offer no falsifiable (a very important word) evidence to demonstrate their idea which is really more philosophical than it is scientific.
The problem is, if their model of design can be explained away (and most likely it will be, or already has been) the result is a loss of faith. Why not just view, consistent with Romans 1:18-20 (referenced twice in the August 17 piece) that the Author of Nature isn’t schizophrenic – that what He’s told us in His revealed Word is consistent with what He gives us in His created world?
Science should be viewed as a gift of God, rather than a threat to our Traditions.
Start with the Fair Tax website. An intriguing proposal and an easy to read book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder, is also available at this website. Is the Fair Tax worth the effort? I’m investigating that. I'll probably have more to say about this in the near future.
Information about Larry Pratt’s radio show is available here.
The City of New London sinks to new lows in the Kelo/eminent domain fight. Not content with the unconstitutional decision they secured, they’re charging “back-rent” – 5 years worth – against the plaintiffs, wiping out their remaining equity. Learn the details here.
And then, take action here.
You only have to scroll down to the August 17 entry in this blog to see how I arrived at my decision that, “evolution is the best explanation presently available to explain our natural history.” One caller suggested that he can see design by looking at his own hand. Indeed.
I lacked time to fully respond (if you’d like to sponsor another hour, because I could certainly use it, let me know at jimbabka at jimbabka dot com). You can hear what I said about the Big Bang on today’s show once the archive is up and available (coming soon), and why it’s fully plausible (likely in my opinion) that there was a Being (God) who set the universe in motion and wrote its laws.
But I really encourage you to read the Fr. Edward Oakes articles to see why there’s a difference between “design” and “order” (I’m not going to give you the links here, because I really, really want you to go through my August 17 blog entry, and you can find them there).
Here’s my dirty oversimplification:
Anything that makes copies of itself (reproduction) is going to be different from the original. Some of those differences in the copy are going to be worse, and some better. Nature tends to preserve the superior copies and eliminate the inferior ones. And to that, even Intelligent Design doesn’t really object. They just call the part they agree with, micro-evolution. Where people get in trouble is that they look for an analog in the man-made mechanical world, and we haven’t yet made reproducing mouse-traps or watches.
Science is not a sufficient tool to tell us what happened before the Big Bang - to determine where the universe and natural law came from. But what happened after the Big Bang is traceable, and is becoming better known all the time because of science.
Intelligent Design suggests that “some intelligent entity” fills the gaps that science cannot explain. Still, most Intelligent Designers believe the Earth is billions of years old and refuse to say who this intelligent entity might be. They offer no falsifiable (a very important word) evidence to demonstrate their idea which is really more philosophical than it is scientific.
The problem is, if their model of design can be explained away (and most likely it will be, or already has been) the result is a loss of faith. Why not just view, consistent with Romans 1:18-20 (referenced twice in the August 17 piece) that the Author of Nature isn’t schizophrenic – that what He’s told us in His revealed Word is consistent with what He gives us in His created world?
Science should be viewed as a gift of God, rather than a threat to our Traditions.
Comments:
I have just now read Fr Oakes review and response to critics. I am a Catholic Christian myself and I am very heartened that you should seek to qoute Catholic clergymen in your analysis as often times catholics are unjustly attacked by Christian radio as being "not even Christian" which is grotesquely false and very wrong.
Having said that I don't think you have a leg to stand on. This pseudo intellectualism that Fr Oakes engages in is partly due, as one of his critcis describes, to his over "anxiety" to defend the Pope's 1996 qualified position on evolution. Fr Oakes gives the distinct impression that all opinions of the Pope are somehow ex-cathedra which must be defended to the last.This is false thinking.We are free to reject this Papal opinion on evolution in the same way that we are free to reject his opinion that the EU is a good idea as these are nothing other than the Pope's political opinions which do not pertain to Papal pronouncements on faith and morals or the essentials of the Christian faith as contained in the Ten Commandments and the articles of the Apostles Creed to which ALL Christians are bound.
As regards the "order" argument that you comment on I see that Fr Oakes himself ascribes this only to point 5 of St Thomas's proof of the existence of God when he was talking about "things lacking awareness". Of course there is an order in the universe governed by "someone with awareness".
He was not talking about human beings that are created in the image and likeness of God but to "things" and objects.
There is no proof anywhere that human beings evloved from a "thing" or an object or even an ape or a monkey and Fr Oakes himself seems to avoid discussing this in his discourse.
I would think the unique finger print of everyone that has ever been or will ever be, the unique genetic code etc etc is proof positive of intelligent design. We also have a knowledge of right and wrong instilled in each one of us and that is the indellible mark of God in our conscience which shows itself from a very early age.
Most Americans and I would say most of your listeners agree with the intelligent design of our Creator, that He created us all separate and unique and different and you seem to be out on a limb to imply otherwise.
If you would like I would love to debate you on Fr Oakes and his writings on your radio broadcast. there is nothing like a touch of controversy to increase the ratings!
Bill Stenson
ws_02@hotmail.com
Post a Comment
Having said that I don't think you have a leg to stand on. This pseudo intellectualism that Fr Oakes engages in is partly due, as one of his critcis describes, to his over "anxiety" to defend the Pope's 1996 qualified position on evolution. Fr Oakes gives the distinct impression that all opinions of the Pope are somehow ex-cathedra which must be defended to the last.This is false thinking.We are free to reject this Papal opinion on evolution in the same way that we are free to reject his opinion that the EU is a good idea as these are nothing other than the Pope's political opinions which do not pertain to Papal pronouncements on faith and morals or the essentials of the Christian faith as contained in the Ten Commandments and the articles of the Apostles Creed to which ALL Christians are bound.
As regards the "order" argument that you comment on I see that Fr Oakes himself ascribes this only to point 5 of St Thomas's proof of the existence of God when he was talking about "things lacking awareness". Of course there is an order in the universe governed by "someone with awareness".
He was not talking about human beings that are created in the image and likeness of God but to "things" and objects.
There is no proof anywhere that human beings evloved from a "thing" or an object or even an ape or a monkey and Fr Oakes himself seems to avoid discussing this in his discourse.
I would think the unique finger print of everyone that has ever been or will ever be, the unique genetic code etc etc is proof positive of intelligent design. We also have a knowledge of right and wrong instilled in each one of us and that is the indellible mark of God in our conscience which shows itself from a very early age.
Most Americans and I would say most of your listeners agree with the intelligent design of our Creator, that He created us all separate and unique and different and you seem to be out on a limb to imply otherwise.
If you would like I would love to debate you on Fr Oakes and his writings on your radio broadcast. there is nothing like a touch of controversy to increase the ratings!
Bill Stenson
ws_02@hotmail.com
# posted by 
: 12:12 AM
: 12:12 AM