Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Naturalism science education

Larry Krauss goes after new US Education Secretary Betsy DeVos

Spread the love

Lawrence KraussFrom cosmologist Larry Krauss, our favorite spokesman for scientism, at the New Yorker:  A long-form rant on a variety of subjects re the impending a-Trump-a-lypse, some of which intersect with items O’Leary for News has covered recently, including science education:

And the Trump Administration is on course to undermine science in another way: through education. Educators have various concerns about Betsy DeVos, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education—they object to her efforts to shield charter schools from government regulation, for example—but one issue stands above the rest: DeVos is a fundamentalist Christian with a long history of opposition to science. If her faith shapes her policies—and there is evidence that it will—she could shape science education decisively for the worse, by systematically depriving young people, in an era where biotechnology will play a key economic and health role worldwide, of a proper understanding of the very basis of modern biology: evolution.

One of Krauss’s concerns is that the husband of nominee DeVos once promo’d ID in schools.

Really, the vast underperformance of publicly-funded US school systems, relative to those of other technologically advanced nations, should be the only issue on the table down there just now. If DeVos is a charter school advocate, she probably understands the parents who are at least free to take their kids and flee. Many parents care but are not so free. Most of the latter are forced to pay taxes to support the flopped system as well (if they rent, they are probably paying the landlord’s business taxes for school assessment, at least in part), which is an added humiliation to them and an enrichment to him.

Krauss has a lot to say about Betsy DeVos’s private religious convictions. To listen to him, one would not think that the US First Amendment, forbidding discrimination on religious grounds, is any longer in force. Maybe it still is. We’ll check.

Of course, one could always fund think tanks on evolution and biotechnology during the breaks from serious reform initiatives… It’s interesting but it just isn’t critical on the ground right now.

Dr. Krauss believes that because DeVos’s husband once advocated “teaching the controversy” around evolution (2006), that’s somehow a threat to the US school system:

Similarly, students should be encouraged to understand that evolution is not some principle laid down on high by a conclave of scientists; they should explore the various empirical tests to which it has been subjected for more than a hundred and fifty years. More.

Larry, about those tests, check your mail. See in particular, Darwinism: Replacement or extension? And it’s all been getting hotter since then too.

The New Yorker used to be more up to date than this. What has happened?

See also: Cosmologist Larry Krauss explains a universe from nothing to an astrophysicist

Follow UD News at Twitter!

One hopes that the geniuses responsible for the physical plant of this school below will refrain from meddling in the intelligent design controversy at the US federal level:

28 Replies to “Larry Krauss goes after new US Education Secretary Betsy DeVos

  1. 1

    You are giving this guy Krauss way more attention than he deserves. Nothing to learn here, except maybe that Krauss is still alive spewing the same old rubbish that he has always spewed.

    Sorry, KF, for my brief lapse of decorum, but this guy Krauss deserves no respect. He is “bad people” as my late grandfather used to say.

  2. 2
    News says:

    But the New Yorker still publishes him and believes the rot. BTW, your News writer is an Ottawa-based Canadian, not KF.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    Maybe the public schools are underfunded, That’s why teachers are buying supplies for their students out of their own pockets. Maybe charter schools cream off the best students leaving public schools to deal with what’s left. Maybe conservatives don’t want oversight of these schools so that they can run scams like some of the private universities. Who knows?

  4. 4
    News says:

    Severky at 3: No. The US spends way more and gets way less for public schooling.

    By the way, what does this MEAN?: “Maybe charter schools cream off the best students leaving public schools to deal with what’s left.”

    In short, the mere fact that a parent has opportunity enough to grab the child and run means that that child is “best”?

    That is the most remarkable theory of “best-ness” some of us have heard lately.

  5. 5
    bFast says:

    Charter schools?! I’m very much hoping that Betsy DeVos brings in voucher education. Then parents will have true choice in education.

    That said, I very much want our kids to be required to know and understand the theory of evolution. If they reject it, let them reject it from knowledge, not from ignorance. I hate to tell Dr. Krauss this, but many with that knowledge will reject it. The theory is not all that convincing in light of the evidence.

  6. 6
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev.

    “Maybe the public schools are underfunded,”

    The left is nothing if not predictable. See a problem? Throw money at it. No evidence that that is the solution? Keep doing it anyway.

    Real spending on education in the US has doubled in the last 30 years while achievement has been flat.

  7. 7
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev.
    “Maybe charter schools cream off the best students leaving public schools to deal with what’s left.”

    Maybe you don’t know what you are talking about. This myth has been debunked repeatedly.

  8. 8
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev.
    “Maybe conservatives don’t want oversight of these schools so that they can run scams like some of the private universities.”

    Public charter schools are accountable for every dollar they spend.

  9. 9
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev made three spectacularly wrong assertions in the course of one paragraph. Maybe a record there. Sev’s supreme indifference to truths that contradict his narrative is a sight to behold.

  10. 10
    EvilSnack says:

    The fact that some parents bail out of the public school system does affect the pool of remaining students. Not because the students removed have any inherent quality that makes them better students, but because their parents are more likely to care whether their child succeeds, which definitely does make their children better students.

  11. 11

    BA @ 9: “Sev’s supreme indifference to truths that contradict his narrative is a sight to behold.”

    Indeed it is.

  12. 12
    OldArmy94 says:

    Larry Krauss is rapidly overtaking Richard Dawkins in the D-Bag Olympics, pardon my expression.

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev:

    Pardon, but the US Public Edu system looks ever more like lack of value for money and increasingly not fit for purpose.

    A key factor being, an ideologised bureaucracy and dominant academic party-lines.

    This is reflected in the ID and climate change and gender bender as well as slaughter of the unborn controversies, but is far broader.

    It seems to be highly relevant to note that the Edu Unions are closely connected to one of the major US political parties, and that they have for decades been locking out reasonable innovations; in material part through that connexion. The rise of home schooling as a walkaway option literally taken up by millions speaks volumes.

    I suggest that in an era where there is an info tech revolution [and I have for years had my eye on the Tablet form factor PC], there is a potential to utterly transform education for the good.

    This includes college, BTW.

    Here is my education pamphlet produced from a blog series I did a couple of years back.

    Notice, the Bloom two-sigma challenge, which indicts our mass production education methods as not fit for purpose. if ninety-eight percent of students, properly individually educated can attain adequate mastery of materials and the typical C-grade now is a potential A- on present assessments, then we are wasting huge potential.

    The seven mountains challenge is looking us in the face.

    I suggest, sci-tech and business opportunities offer a chance to go for deeply indivdualised curricula that build up mastery on sound basis. Using, Tablets [I favour the 2 in 1 form factor] and multimedia tech as core vehicles.

    Right now I have HP 48 emus loaded, with Xcalc as advanced scientific calculators, and also with spectrum analysers and more.

    Even my ultimate cheapo Android smart phone — a Digicel giveaway with a subscription deal — has some of this stuff!

    Multiply by a wireless accessible vast digital library. Look at print on demand and Risograph technologies for the paper side of things.

    Bring to bear plug in or bluetooth tied instrumentation.

    Drop in some Raspberry Pi to power educational equipment at what US$ 25 a pop for a UNIX machine.

    Look at LCD TV’s as classroom widescreen access points for teleconferencing.

    And ever so much more.

    Of course, all of this requires a curriculum design revolution.

    It is coming.

    KF

  14. 14
    News says:

    Seversky at 3 and discussion following: “Maybe charter schools cream off the best students leaving public schools to deal with what’s left.”

    It testifies to how bad things have become that people can make such an argument in good faith (I believe it is in good faith) and count on most of their audience to be oblivious to the implications: The escaping students and parents were responsible for saving the school from ruin at the hands of baby-kissers, ‘crats, and union thugs. So they have an obligation to stay and fight.

    If so, let’s make all schools charter schools, obviating the flight risk.

  15. 15
    Origenes says:

    Why does the materialist Krauss care about mental influences like education and rational arguments? Why does he act as if the non-rational chemistry which makes up his thoughts is susceptible for anything other than blind chemistry? Why does he act as if materialism is not true?

  16. 16

    Origenes @ 15: Because he is delusion.

  17. 17
    bill cole says:

    I have substituted a few worsd to clarify Larry’s real position vs his astroturf position.

    And the Trump Administration is on course to undermine atheism in another way: through education. Educators have various concerns about Betsy DeVos, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education—they object to her efforts to shield charter schools from government regulation, for example—but one issue stands above the rest: DeVos is a fundamentalist Christian with a long history of opposition to scientism. If her faith shapes her policies—and there is evidence that it will—she could shape atheistic education decisively for the worse, by systematically depriving young people, in an era where biotechnology will play a key economic and health role worldwide, of a proper misunderstanding of the very basis of modern biology: evolutionism.

  18. 18
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is the some good news and some bad news: One of the reasons Donald Trump won the recent U. S. presidential election was because of an historic turn-out of evangelical Christians (+ 80%) who voted for the Republican nominee. Yes, there were other constituencies (like white blue-collar workers) who helped give him the victory but it’s doubtful he could have won without a higher than average turnout on behalf of evangelicals.

    What was the main concern of evangelical Christians? Religious liberty. While some evangelicals think that ID or some form of creationism (I am not implying that they are one and the same) should be included in public school curriculum, for Christians like me that is a superfluous side show. I am more concerned how the secular progressive left has been able to subvert Christian values by pushing things like same-sex marriage (SSM). Look how much American culture has been changed by that one issue. Back in 2008 during the Democratic primaries both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voiced support for traditional marriage, now both strongly support SSM. Even before the recent Supreme Court decision “legalizing” SSM there was out right persecution of Christian bakers, florist and photographers along with Christian colleges and student groups (etc.) for not accepting “marriage equality.” Christian businesses have been sued, Christian employees fired and Christian student groups driven off campuses of State Universities simply because they will not compromise what has been a long standing Christian belief.

    The good news is that with the election of Trump, Christians have a chance to catch their collective breath. The bad news is that this is only a small, long overdue victory, of one battle in a long drawn out culture war.

    Back in the 1960’s (I graduated H.S. in ‘69) Christian missionary and philosopher, Francis Schaeffer, began warning Christians that we were living in a post-Christian culture. In the 1980’s before his death he warned things were going to get a lot worse. I remember a lot of people saying that he was an alarmist because he began warning us about bio-ethic challenges like euthanasia, infanticide and cloning. It sounded at the time like science fiction. It now looks like he was very prescient.

    I remember walking home from church one Sunday afternoon in the early 60’s with a couple of my siblings only to discover that the house key was not in its hiding place, so we were locked out. (Our parents had other plans for the afternoon.) However, after checking the backdoor and finding it locked, I was able to find a way in through a side window.

    That is a metaphor of the way the secular progressive left have been able to marginalize and shut Christianity out of the culture. Let’s be honest we no longer have a way in through the front door or back door. However, it looks like there still might be a way in through a side window. But at best we have four– maybe eight years…

    Part of the mission of Christianity, apart from the primary mission of evangelization, is to be a positive moral influence on culture and society– to be “salt and light” (Matthew 5:13-16). One of the reasons the secular progressive movement has been steadily growing in the last 200 years is because Christians have abdicated their responsibility to do basic evangelism along with being “salt and light”– sometimes called the mission of common grace. Someone has said that politics is downstream from culture. Again, it’s good that Christians in the U.S. have gotten a little reprieve but that is all it really is, a little reprieve. If we had been carrying out our mission the way we should have we would not have to wait on the next presidential election or Supreme Court appointment we’d be setting at least part of the agenda.

    Why do we take Lawrence Krauss seriously? (30-40 years ago we wouldn’t have) It is because the mindset he represents has become so deeply embedded in some parts of the culture– indeed in a lot of ways it dominates. For the present he still represents a minority view but it is becoming more influential, if not growing. Partly this is because the Christian church has become very poor at messaging. The Gospel literally means “good news.” However, when we become reactionary, because we neglected our mission, it comes across as bad news– something the secular progressive left loves to point out. If it is good news we ought to be proactive, shouldn’t we? (Rom. 1:16) There is nothing that is more about messaging than the gospel. So messaging is something Christians should be and need to be good at. It is an intrinsic part of our mission. However, our failure there is one of the reasons we have been losing our influence in the culture. We need to be honest about that if we are ever going, with God’s help, turn things around.

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD:

    Actually, it can be argued the mission of the church, per Great Commission is DISCIPLE-MAKING, with intentional transformative impact at personal, counter-cultural and cultural level:

    Matt 28: 16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.

    18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[b] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” [ESV]

    Operational form:

    Eph 4:9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?[b] 10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

    11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[c] and teachers,[d] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[e] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

    15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

    17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds.

    18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.

    20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. [ESV]

    The church’s mandate is pervasive and transformational.

    We do have a messaging issue as deception and inherently self-falsifying schemes have achieved such message dominance — often by dressing up in a lab coat — that soundness, truth and right are squeezed out to the margins and are effectively silenced and hated.

    But truth accurately corresponds to reality, so to try to build a civilisation on error, lies and wrong claiming to be rights backed up by intimidation and lawfare is to set out on a determined march of ruinous folly.

    (Ac 27 speaks to this.)

    In this context I think we have often failed to understand:

    2 Cor 10: 4 The weapons of our warfare are not physical [weapons of flesh and blood]. Our weapons are divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 5 We are destroying sophisticated arguments and every exalted and proud thing that sets itself up against the [true] knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought and purpose captive to the obedience of Christ . . . [AMP]

    We have serious homework to do.

    KF

    PS: By applying a 40 year linear growth model to the Guttmacher Institute’s report of 50+ mn unborn children killed in the womb per year — yes, a million a week — and slicing off 20% to be conservative, we see 800+ million unborn children killed across a generation. The worst holocaust in history, and still ongoing. The blood guilt and corruption of thought, law, media, education, medicine etc to sustain such readily explains the hard-hearted deception, ever-growing perversity and delight in the wrong of our time. This is the central indefensible evil of our time, the evil that must lie in the shadow of lies and worse. Once this is exposed and broken, the road to reform to set it right will lead to a much broader programme of reformation that — if we are lucky — will return our civilisation to sanity before we go over a cliff.

  20. 20
    timothya says:

    KF:

    “The church’s mandate is pervasive and transformational.”

    Pervasive for whom?

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    TA,

    as in “filling all things [panta],” per Eph 1 and 4 etc.

    The issue at any given time and place is how far along that is.

    In a nutshell, take any aspect of our world’s reality A:

    What does it look like now?

    Were it positively impacted by the gospel and particularly the power manifested in the resurrection [cf Eph 1:17 – 23, 4:9 – 24, 5:1 – 21], what would it become?

    That gap analysis in principle defines the overall mission of the church and the gospel’s message to A; given that “the church is His body, the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way” [1:22 – 23, NIV] and the ultimate Divine purpose “to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ” [1:9 – 10, NIV].

    Where also, from Heb 1:

    “Heb 1:1 God, having spoken to the fathers long ago in [the voices and writings of] the prophets in many separate revelations [each of which set forth a portion of the truth], and in many ways, 2 has in these last days spoken [with finality] to us in [the person of One who is by His character and nature] His Son [namely Jesus], whom He appointed heir and lawful owner of all things, through whom also He created the universe [that is, the universe as a space-time-matter continuum].

    3 The Son is the radiance and only expression of the glory of [our awesome] God [reflecting God’s [a]Shekinah glory, the Light-being, the brilliant light of the divine], and the exact representation and perfect imprint of His [Father’s] essence, and upholding and maintaining and propelling all things [the entire physical and spiritual universe] by His powerful word [carrying the universe along to its predetermined goal] . . . [AMP]”

    Cf nicene creed.

    KF

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: One thing that has been exercising me in the past few weeks is the issue of respect for truth and for justice. Who is Truth, himself? The Just One? So, if we speak in disregard to truth and act in disregard to justice, Who are we disregarding and disrespecting; even, pretending to usurp to ourselves the position of — i.e. misrepresenting ourselves as holding the dignity of God and so blaspheming? Including, in what we regard as knowledge, why and how? What happens when we become thereby, rocks of offence and stumbling blocks to those who are literal or metaphorical children, given say Matt 18:1 – 9, 10 – 14 etc? Do we realise that this sort of iniquity brings us under several woes? That, those under a Divine Woe, are under a curse and can only seek blessing by repentance? (I find this humbling and challenging, forcing a renewal of attitude that recognises that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill willed, needing to repent and seek renewal and reformation energised by forgiveness.)

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Krauss’s article should be the very definition of what diatribe means.

    di·a·tribe
    noun
    noun: diatribe; plural noun: diatribes

    a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
    (see Krauss’s article in the New Yorker)

    Contrary to Krauss’s dogmatic claim that Darwinian Evolution is science and Intelligent Design is pseudo-science, and anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot, the fact of the matter is that the shoe is squarely on the other foot.

    The truth, as I touched on yesterday, is that Darwinian evolution is, at least how Darwinists currently have it set up, basically an unfalsifiable pseudo-science and Intelligent Design is very much a testable, i.e. falsifiable, science:

    It is interesting to point out, whilst all the equations that accurately describe the universe are based on universal constants or natural laws of some sort, the math of Darwinian evolution is not based on any universal constant or natural law of any sort.,,,
    ,,, (and) Without a universal constant or natural law to base its math on, Darwinian evolution is not testable, (i.e. potentially falsifiable by direct experiment), and therefore Darwinian evolution does not qualify as a proper science in the first place but is more realistically classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-622311

    But, other than Darwinian evolution being a unfalsifiable pseudo-science, the problems get worse for Atheists. Much worse!

    To repost, and add on to, an earlier post:

    Let us be VERY clear to the fact that ALL of science, every discipline within science, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Modern science was born, and continues to be dependent on, those basic Theistic presuppositions:

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

    Moreover, if we cast aside those basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our mind to comprehend that rational intelligibility, and try to use naturalism, i.e. methodological naturalism, as our basis for understanding the universe, and for practicing science, then everything within that atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.

    Contrary to popular belief, Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, far from being the supposedly ‘scientific’ worldviews, are, in fact, built entirely upon a foundation of quicksand that quickly engulfs all of our conceptions and observations about reality into a quagmire of illusions and fantasy.

    First off, in regards to Darwinian Evolution, atheists hold that the design that we see pervasively throughout life is merely an illusion, i.e. merely an ‘appearance of design’.

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
    Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21
    quoted from this video – Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – 2010 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY

    “Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection.”
    Ernst Mayr – Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought – November 24, 2009

    living organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”
    Richard C. Lewontin – Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book ‘Evolution’ (September 1978)

    “This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature…. Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.”
    George Gaylord Simpson – “The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature” – 1947

    Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, seems to have been particularly haunted by seeing the ‘illusion of design’ everywhere he looked in molecular biology:

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 138 (1990)

    “Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 30

    Yet, despite the fact that, according to many leading atheists themselves, life gives the overwhelming ‘appearance’ of having been designed for a purpose, all the purported scientific evidence, that is suppose to demonstrate for the rest of us how this overwhelming appearance of design in life came to be by unguided material processes, turns out, itself, to be ‘illusory’.

    Franklin M. Harold, whom I believe is also an atheist, calls Darwinian accounts ‘a variety of wishful speculations’. Specifically he states:

    “,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    James Shapiro, main founder of the anti neo-Darwinian group of scholars “The Third Way”, makes an almost verbatim statement prior to Harold’s statement:

    “The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new […} in fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.”
    Prof. James Shapiro – “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64.

    The late Stephen Jay Gould weighs in here on the evidence free ‘just-so stories’ of Darwinists and states “Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”

    Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530

    In fact, one of the main themes of many of Michael Behe’s talks is that ALL ‘grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination’:

    “Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination”
    Dr. Michael Behe – 29:24 mark of this following video
    Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....fM#t=1762s

    “Some evolutionary biologists–like Richard Dawkins–have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish”
    (Michael Behe – Darwin’s Black Box)

    Thus, the overwhelming ‘appearance of design’, that Atheists themselves admit to seeing pervasively throughout life, was apparently produced by scientific evidence that itself turns out to be illusory.

    Simply put, illusory evidence produced illusory design!

    Perhaps atheists can excuse me if I find their illusory scientific argument less than compelling?

    Whereas back in the real world, in the following video, after demonstrating through the mathematics of population genetics that Natural Selection is grossly inadequate as a designer substitute, Dr. Richard Sternberg states:

    “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they (really) are designed.”
    Richard Sternberg –
    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpted from Living Waters documentary by Illustra Media)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

    In fact, I hold that Darwinists are ‘naturally’ detecting design because of the inherent ‘image of God’ that they have within themselves, and that they are, for whatever misguided reason, living in denial of that ‘design intuition’ they naturally have.

    Children are born believers in God, academic claims – 24 Nov 2008
    Excerpt: “Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....laims.html

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    Is Atheism a Delusion? – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
    The short answer to the question “Is Atheism a Delusion?” is “Yes it is”, and there are many psychological studies backing up the claim that atheists, whether consciously or not, are actively, even angrily, suppressing their ‘natural’ belief in God.

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, atheists seeing the ‘illusion of design’ and the illusory nature inherent to the evidence presented for Darwinian evolution, gets worse for the atheist. Much worse! For instance, although reliable ‘observation’ of reality is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself,,,

    Steps of the Scientific Method
    Observation/Research
    Hypothesis
    Prediction
    Experimentation
    Conclusion
    http://www.sciencemadesimple.c.....ethod.html

    ,,, Although reliable ‘observation’ of reality is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method, the reductive materialistic foundation that Darwinian evolution rests upon undermines this necessary cornerstone.

    In other words, given materialistic/atheistic premises, not only are our personal beliefs about reality held to be somewhat flawed, and therefore in need of testing against the real world, even our perceptions/observations of reality itself are held to be untrustworthy and thus ‘illusory’ given the materialistic premises of atheism.

    Richard Dawkins puts the awkward situation between Darwinian evolution and reliable observation like this:

    Why Atheism is Nonsense Pt.5 – “Naturalism is a Self-defeating Idea”video
    Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
    Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff-5rsrDRGM

    In the following video and article, Donald Hoffman has, through numerous computer simulations of population genetics, proved that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory.

    Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark
    Quote: “,,,evolution is a mathematically precise theory. We can use the equations of evolution to check this out. We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete and see which survive and which thrive, which sensory systems or more fit. A key notion in those equations is fitness.,,, fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?”
    https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016
    The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
    Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

    Although Hoffman tried to limit his results to just our visual perceptions, as Alvin Plantinga pointed out years before Hoffman came along, there is no reason why these results do not also extend to undermining our cognitive faculties as well:

    The Case Against Reality – May 13, 2016
    Excerpt: Hoffman seems to come to a conclusion similar to the one Alvin Plantinga argues in ch. 10 of Where the Conflict Really Lies: we should not expect — in the absence of further argument — that creatures formed by a naturalistic evolutionary process would have veridical perceptions.,,,
    First, even if Hoffman’s argument were restricted to visual perception, and not to our cognitive faculties more generally (e.g., memory, introspection, a priori rational insight, testimonial belief, inferential reasoning, etc.), the conclusion that our visual perceptions would be wholly unreliable given natural selection would be sufficient for Plantinga’s conclusion of self-defeat. After all, reliance upon the veridicality of our visual perceptions was and always will be crucial for any scientific argument for the truth of evolution. So if these perceptions cannot be trusted, we have little reason to think evolutionary theory is true.
    Second, it’s not clear that Hoffman’s application of evolutionary game theory is only specially applicable to visual perception, rather than being relevant for our cognitive faculties generally. If “we find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality” (2010, p. 504, my emphasis), then why wouldn’t veridical cognitive faculties (more generally) be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality? After all, evolutionary theory purports to be the true account of the formation of all of our cognitive faculties, not just our faculty of visual perception. If evolutionary game theory proves that “true perception generally goes extinct” when “animals that perceive the truth compete with others that sacrifice truth for speed and energy-efficiency” (2008), why wouldn’t there be a similar sacrifice with respect to other cognitive faculties? In fact, Hoffman regards the following theorem as now proven: “According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness” (Atlantic interview). But then wouldn’t it also be the case that an organism that cognizes reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that cognizes none of reality but is just tuned to fitness? On the evolutionary story, every cognitive faculty we have was produced by a process that was tuned to fitness (rather than tuned to some other value, such as truth).
    http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/.....t-reality/

    Thus, in what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding all our observations of reality, and cognitive faculties, are illusory is NOT a worldview that can be firmly grounded within the scientific method! Nancy Pearcey comments on the scientifically self-defeating nature of Darwinian evolution in the following article:

    Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015
    Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false.
    To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
    So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,,
    Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.
    The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94171.html

    Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the math of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced, because of the mathematics of population genetics, to believe that their observations of reality are illusory!

    Moreover, as Nancy Pearcey alluded to in her ‘Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself’ article, given the materialistic/atheistic premises of Darwinian evolution, not only are our observations of reality itself held to be illusory, but even our sense of self, i.e. the belief that we really exist as real persons, which is the most sure thing a person can possibly know about reality, becomes illusory too.
    Thus, in what I consider to be a shining example of poetic justice, in their claim that God does not really exist as a real person but is merely an illusion, the naturalist also ends up claiming that he himself does not really exist as a real person but is merely an illusion. Here are a few quotes to that effect,,,

    “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”
    Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994

    “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.”
    Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    Per NY Times

    At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
    “consciousness is an illusion”
    A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins
    ”If consciousness is an illusion… what isn’t?”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

    Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark
    Quote: “You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren’t any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That’s why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, “You know, I’m not really here”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    Thus, given materialistic premises, people become illusions whose observations of reality are illusory.

    And exactly why in blue blazes should anyone trust what illusions having illusions have to say about reality?

    of personal note: Edgar Allen Poe’s poem “Dream within a Dream” is a fitting reference at this point

    A Dream Within A Dream – Poem by Edgar Allan Poe
    http://www.poemhunter.com/poem.....n-a-dream/

    Moreover, as Nancy Pearcey alluded to in her article, free will itself also becomes illusory. Thus, under atheistic naturalism there is not really a real person with the free will to choose to believe in, or to not believe in anything, be it believing in God or be it believing in naturalism. There are only illusions of persons who are somehow fed illusions of free will.

    Moreover, these illusions of free will somehow miraculously coincide with the illusory intentions of that illusory person.

    How the supposed random jostling of atoms in our brain pulls off all this amazing synchronization of illusions throughout our entire life is something that fully ought to be considered miraculous in its own right!

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: “Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,,
    some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.”,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90071.html

    And although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take:

    “You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”
    “You didn’t open the door. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”
    “You didn’t raise your hand. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”
    “You didn’t etc.. etc.. etc… Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”

    A few more notes along this line:

    Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will – July 27, 2014
    Excerpt: And free will?:
    Horgan: Einstein,,, seemed to doubt free will:,,,
    George Ellis: ,,, if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options.
    I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....free-will/

    Human consciousness is much more than mere brain activity, – Mark Vernon – 18 June 2011
    However, “If you think the brain is a machine then you are committed to saying that composing a sublime poem is as involuntary an activity as having an epileptic fit. …the nature of consciousness being a tremendous mystery.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....n-activity

    Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006
    Excerpt:
    Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,,
    Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
    Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02783.html

    Finally, this unconstrained ‘illusory’ nature inherent to the Atheistic worldview becomes even more acute when atheists try to explain the origin and sustaining of the universe, i.e. try to explain the origin, fine-tuning, and quantum wave collapse of the universe.

    That is to say, every time an atheist postulates a random infinity to try to get around the glaringly obvious Theistic implications of the Big Bang, the fine-tuning, and the quantum wave collapse, of the universe, then the math surrounding that random infinity tells us that everything that is remotely possible of happening has a 100% chance of happening somewhere within that random infinity of possibilities that the atheist had postulated. Even an infinite number of Richard Dawkins riding on an infinite number of pink unicorns becomes assured of happening somewhere in that unconstrained random infinity of possibilities:

    Why Most Atheists Believe in Pink Unicorns – May 2014
    Excerpt: Given an infinite amount of time, anything that is logically possible(11) will eventually happen. So, given an infinite number of universes being created in (presumably) an infinite amount of time, you are not only guaranteed to get your universe but every other possible universe. This means that every conceivable universe exists, from ones that consist of nothing but a giant black hole, to ones that are just like ours and where someone just like you is reading a blog post just like this, except it’s titled: “Why most atheists believe in blue unicorns.”
    By now I’m sure you know where I’m going with this, but I’ll say it anyway. Since we know that horses are possible, and that pink animals are possible, and that horned animals are possible, then there is no logical reason why pink unicorns are not possible entities. Ergo, if infinite universes exist, then pink unicorns must necessarily exist. For an atheist to appeal to multiverse theory to deny the need of a designer infers that he believes in that theory more than a theistically suggestive single universe. And to believe in the multiverse means that one is saddled with everything that goes with it, like pink unicorns. In fact, they not only believe in pink unicorns, but that someone just like them is riding on one at this very moment, and who believes that elephants, giraffes, and zebra are merely childish fairytales.
    Postscript
    While it may be amusing to imagine atheists riding pink unicorns, it should be noted that the belief in them does not logically invalidate atheism. There theoretically could be multiple universes and there theoretically could be pink unicorns. However, there is a more substantial problem for the atheist if he wants to believe in them and he wants to remain an atheist. Since, as I said, anything can happen in the realm of infinities, one of those possibilities is the production of a being of vast intelligence and power. Such a being would be as a god to those like us, and could perhaps breach the boundaries of the multiverse to, in fact, be a “god” to this universe. This being might even have the means to create its own universe and embody the very description of the God of Christianity (or any other religion that the atheist otherwise rejects). It seems the atheist, in affirming the multiverse in order to avoid the problem of fine-tuning, finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. The further irony is that somewhere, in the great wide world of infinities, the atheist’s doppelganger is going to war against an army of theists riding on the horns of a great pink beast known to his tribesman as “The Saddlehorn Dilemma.”
    https://pspruett.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/why-most-atheists-believe-in-pink-unicorns/

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity – Max Tegmark – January 2014 and Feb. 2015
    Excerpt: Physics is all about predicting the future from the past, but inflation seems to sabotage this: when we try to predict the probability that something particular will happen, inflation always gives the same useless answer: infinity divided by infinity. The problem is that whatever experiment you make, inflation predicts that there will be infinitely many copies of you far away in our infinite space, obtaining each physically possible outcome, and despite years of tooth-grinding in the cosmology community, no consensus has emerged on how to extract sensible answers from these infinities. So strictly speaking, we physicists are no longer able to predict anything at all!
    http://blogs.discovermagazine......OsRyS7cBCA

    Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015
    Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way.
    That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe (and another you).,,,
    http://aeon.co/magazine/scienc.....a-fantasy/

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g

    Thus, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, observations of reality, beliefs about reality, sense of self, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasy and imagination.

    It would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism/naturalism in general have turned out to be.

    Scientists should definitely stick with the worldview that brought them to the dance! i.e Christianity!

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Verses, Videos and Music:

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    2 Peter 1:16
    For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

    Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

    The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uHST2uFPQY&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=4

    Hillsong United – Taya Smith – Touch The Sky – Acoustic Cover – Live – HD
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyl34fHQi3U

  27. 27
    groovamos says:

    Seversky: Maybe conservatives don’t want oversight of these schools so that they can run scams like some of the private universities.

    I graduated from a private university, Vanderbilt, that was founded by the Methodist church with money from Commodore Vanderbilt.

    The scam my private university ran was to ban all Christian organizations, 12 of them, from campus. They all now meet at Belmont University a few blocks over, founded by Baptists. Why did Vanderbilt DISCRIMINATE against every Christian student group? Because they say that the requirement that officers of the Christian groups be prepared to lead devotional readings and prayer is immoral religious discrimination. Funny thing, Methodist founding having this kind of outcome. Funny thing, the charge of discrimination inspiring counter-discrimination. The chancellor is ethnically Jewish BTW.

    I direct the final FU to VU by withholding all support and instead send it to UT Austin where I got graduate schooling.

    Note: several institutions around the country have followed the example of Vanderbilt in this new tactic of the culture war. Check up on yours to find out if there is a better way to donate your money.

  28. 28

    Creationism is the most important fundament of any good education. It’s because creationism explains what a fact is and what an opinion is, and distinguishes them.

    One should just teach in school the difference between fact and opinion, which equatesto teaching creationism.

Leave a Reply