Climate change Intelligent Design Laws Naturalism News

We know the world isn’t right when Larry Krauss is unhappy

Spread the love

Apparently, the US House is on an anti-science rampage. From himself at New Yorker:

From climate change and evolution to sex education and vaccination, there has always been tension between scientists and Congress. But Smith, who has been in Congress since 1987 and assumed the chairmanship of the Science Committee in 2013, has escalated that tension into outright war. Smith has a background in American studies and law, not science. He has, however, received more than six hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions from the oil-and-gas industry during his time in Congress—more than from any other single industry. With a focus that is unprecedented, he’s now using his position to attack scientists and activists who work on climate change. Under his leadership, the committee has issued more subpoenas than it had during its previous fifty-four-year history. More.

But wait, the other side, represented by Bill Nye, wants dissenters from “scientists and activists who work on climate change” to be in jail.

We all might be better off with a mere anti-science rampage. Oh well, an election is coming up in the States. They can choose.

See also: Krauss vs Meyer: Debate opponents disagree not only on Origins but on the intellectual capacity of their audience

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “We know the world isn’t right when Larry Krauss is unhappy

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Krauss tries to label anyone who does not hold to his preferences for education, preferences that flow from his atheistic/materialistic worldview, as being ‘anti-science’. Yet, the fact of the matter is that Krauss’s preferred atheistic/materialistic worldview is the most ‘anti-scientific’ worldview around:

    Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a foundation of illusions and fantasy
    Excerpt: 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 our conception of reality itself into a quagmire of illusions and fantasy.,,,
    basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. sense of self. observation of reality, free will, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasies and imagination. Because of such catastrophic epistemological failure inherent within Darwinian Evolution and Atheistic materialism, it would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than Darwinian evolution and Atheistic materialism turn out to be.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit

    In fact, contrary to Krauss’s personal beliefs, Christianity, far from being ‘anti-science’, is the worldview that gave birth to modern science:

    The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014
    Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing.
    As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview.
    http://townhall.com/columnists...../page/full
    Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

    The truth about science and religion By Terry Scambray – August 14, 2014
    Excerpt: In 1925 the renowned philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead speaking to scholars at Harvard said that science originated in Christian Europe in the 13th century. Whitehead pointed out that science arose from “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher”, from which it follows that human minds created in that image are capable of understanding nature.
    The audience, assuming that science and Christianity are enemies, was astonished.
    http://www.americanthinker.com.....igion.html

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
    http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

    In fact, although you would not know it today because of the hostility towards Christianity in many American universities, Christianity was the driving catalyst behind the founding of most American universities:

    The History of Christian Education in America
    Excerpt: The first colleges in America were founded by Christians and approximately 106 out of the first 108 colleges were Christian colleges. In fact, Harvard University, which is considered today as one of the leading universities in America and the world was founded by Christians. One of the original precepts of the then Harvard College stated that students should be instructed in knowing God and that Christ is the only foundation of all “sound knowledge and learning.”
    http://www.ehow.com/about_6544.....erica.html

    To this day, Christianity is very friendly to scientific advancement:

    Bruce Charlton’s Miscellany – October 2011
    Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be – if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?
    http://charltonteaching.blogsp.....-wife.html

    In fact, to the extent that atheists are successful in imposing their secular views on the American education system, they have only succeeded in ‘dumbing down’ America and making it a more ‘unscientific’ nation. The prime example of this ‘dumbing down’ being the removal of prayer from school that was followed by a 17 year long drop in SAT scores in public schools (although private Christian schools remained unchanged in their SAT scores during the same time period):

    The last graph on the following site shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, i.e. legislation from the bench, in 1963.

    AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray – David Barton – graphs corrected for population growth
    http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html

    The Devastating Effects on America When Prayer Was Removed From School in America in 1962-63 – David Barton – video
    (excerpted from Barton’s “America’s Godly Heritage’ lecture)
    https://youtu.be/1No–GpdqCY

    Atheists like to claim that the removal of prayer from school was necessary because of the ‘separation of church and state’ clause that is in the constitution. That claim, like everything else within the atheistic worldview, is based on a lie. The fact of the matter is that the term ‘separation of church and state’ is nowhere to be found in the constitution, but was instead lifted from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a Baptist minister assuring him that the state would never impose its mandates on his religious freedoms. i.e. The term ‘separation of church and state’ was used in the context of saying the church was completely protected from government intrusions, not the other way around.

    Basically the term ‘separation of church and state’ was twisted 180 degrees out of its original context in order for atheists to try to justify their claim that the constitution mandates a secular worldview. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Jefferson, the supposed atheists’s darling of secularism, himself used federal money for ‘church planting’.

    The Fallacy Of The Doctrine Of Separation of Church and State – video
    http://empowerliberty.com/vide.....ty-results
    The preceding video analyzes the Thomas Jefferson letter to the Baptists in full starting at around the 26 minute mark of the lecture and shows how the ‘separation’ between church and state phrase in the letter has been twisted 180 degrees out of its original context and meaning.
    As well, at around the 30 minute mark Thomas Jefferson’s ‘church planting’ acts (with federal money no less, while he was president of the United states) are gone over.

    Imagine if a Republican President tried such ‘church planting’ today. I imagine Atheists would have an absolute fit and demand that the atheistic leaning Democrats impeach the president! (Although I am quite sure atheists are very comfortable with Democratic Presidents spending Billions of dollars for abortion subsidies here and in other nations)

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Of supplemental note:

    Atheism and the Law – Matt Dillahunty
    Excerpt: “… whether atheism is a ‘religion’ for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture.” “Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of ‘ultimate concern’ that for her occupy a ‘place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,’ those beliefs represent her religion.”
    “We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003) (‘If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.’)”
    “The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions”
    http://www.atheist-community.o.....php?id=742

    Southwestern University Law Review: DEALING WITH THE ENTANGLEMENT OF RELIGION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IN AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
    Excerpt: But each time we present a theory of life’s origin to our schoolchildren, we are showing preference. And by actually looking at the theories and what they represent, as well as looking at what religion provides for people, we can see that the government, even in limiting the teaching to only evolution, is endorsing a religious ideology. A message exists behind this endorsement – the same message people feared would exist if we allowed schools to teach biblical creationism theories or even intelligent design theory. The message itself is an endorsement. Accordingly, the government is endorsing a particular religious belief – the belief that no supernatural being exists. In effect, this endorsement not only advances that particular religious belief and inhibits other religious beliefs, but also it shows an utter failure of maintaining the government’s requisite neutrality involving religion and the government.
    https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doc

    In Court Rulings on Teaching Origins Science, Law Review Article Finds a Double Standard – Sarah Chaffee – May 6, 2016
    Excerpt: In a newly published law review article, “Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools,” attorney and former Discovery Institute research coordinator Casey Luskin examines the way courts have struck down the teaching of alternatives to evolution because of their historical associations with religion. At the same time, he notes that courts typically ignore anti-religious historical associations with Darwinism.
    As Luskin documents, these associations are prevalent and well known. The result is a double standard, as courts hold alternatives to evolution unconstitutional to teach, but evolution constitutional.
    Luskin notes that the solution to this problem is not removing evolution from schools. He vigorously opposes having evolution declared unconstitutional. Instead, he argues that religious associations of scientific views on origins science should not be constitutionally fatal, but rather should be considered an “incidental effect.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02826.html

    On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits – September 2011
    Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry.
    *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....50451.html

    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
    Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse – Prominent Atheistic Philosopher

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist – Michael Egnor
    Excerpt: The fight against the design inference in biology is motivated by fundamentalist atheism. Darwinists detest intelligent design theory because it is compatible with belief in God.
    But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity–the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells–is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines.
    I still consider religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But I understand now that Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science. Darwin’s theory of biological origins is atheism’s creation myth, and atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor.
    – Michael Egnor is a professor and vice chairman of the department of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/.....egnor.html

  3. 3

    Krauss is “anti-dissent.” He is a petulant child in a grown-up body. A foolish man admired only by other fools.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    It appears the video that I referenced in regards to the myth of ‘separation of church and state’ is no longer available.

    Here is an article that covers much the same ground:

    The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse
    By Daniel L. Dreisbach
    Excerpt: The First Amendment, with all its guarantees, was entirely a check or restraint on civil government, specifically Congress. The free press guarantee, for example, was not written to protect the civil state from the press; rather, it was designed to protect a free and independent press from control by the federal government.
    Similarly, the religion provisions were added to the Constitution to protect religion and religious institutions from corrupting interference by the federal government and not to protect the civil state from the influence of, or overreaching by, religion.
    http://www.heritage.org/resear.....-discourse

Leave a Reply