We live in a post-modern [actually, ultra-modern . . . in Joe Carter’s sense of “modernity on volume level ELEVEN, not merely  ten” . . . ] world, or so we are commonly told. In that world, it is a commonplace to hear that “Aristotelian logic” exhibits a black- and- white thinking fallacy (strawman: any shade of pink, gold or green  etc. will do as NOT-WHITE . . . ). It is equally commonplace to see that truth and rationality are reduced in the minds of such to mere opinion, to be decided in the end by the nihilistic principle might and manipulation make ‘right.’ Which is in itself a big red warning flag. In such a situation, those who Read More ›

One of our frequent objectors, JLA, has listed the consequences of evolutionary materialism, by way of objecting to BA’s further reply to the current crop of remarks at TSZ. (NB: I at first thought he might be being satirical, but, sadly, he is actually playing a straight hand. {Let me make this plain: FULL MARKS for sheer raw honesty. That needs to be respected and JLA must be treated with dignity. From what he says below, he is exposing what he sees as the too often unacknowledged consequences of evolutionary materialism, as what we could call an agnostic in transition.} ) I excerpted his list, and added some remarks on what the points reveal about evolutionary materialism. Not, because JLA Read More ›

“Cool” is often presented as the iconic, somewhat glamorous state of being calm, collected, in control.  It is often viewed as highly desirable, sexy, balanced, stylish, just plain “right.” Oh, soo, desirable . . . But, beneath the surface of “cool,” there too often lurks a reptilian coldly amoral ferocity that marks all the difference between the Christian virtue of self-control and the manipulative, demonically controlling. The dark triad, satanic side of cool. Dark triad? Though this sounds a little like an overly melodramatic movie title, it is actually a term of art in modern psychology, to describe a destructive cluster of personality syndromes that is increasingly seen. As Susan Whitbourne, writing in a Psychology Today article, sums up in Read More ›

Two years ago I asked this question:  How Can We Know One Belief Selected for By Evolution is Superior to Another? I illustrated the conundrum faced by the evolutionary materialist (EM) with this little back and forth: Theist: You say there is no God. EM: Yes. Theist: Yet belief in God among many (if not most) humans persists. EM: I cannot deny that. Theist: How do you explain that? EM: Religious belief is an evolutionary adaption. Theist: But you say religious belief is false. EM: That’s correct. Theist: Let me get this straight. According to you, religious belief has at least two characteristics: (1) it is false; and (2) evolution selected for it. EM [looking a little pale now, because Read More ›

Science has gone mad. Or, so it seems. The materialist urge seems to be so great that every branch of science now appears to be lurching toward the Darwinian paradigm, which, as I indicate in the title of this OP, is, basically, the “mother of materialism”! Here’s why I say this. We’ve just finished (or, are beginning, or, something) with Chaitin’s search for “evolving software”. He wants to prove the Darwinian paradigm true by building a software that can maintain its evolving ways. In the course of doing this, he reaches the conclusion that mathematics is “more biological than biology itself, which merely contains extremely large finite complexity” (and not the “infinite” complexity the software program requires). So, mathematics is Read More ›

A friend at ProgettoCosmo, the Italian ID site, writes to remind us of J. P. Moreland’s dictum: “There will never be a natural explanation for consciousness from matter, period.”

Moreland is arguing from principle, that is, putting forward an argument from impossibility: “There will never be…” is not “it is unlikely…”.

But what happens when Moreland, or any ID advocate, defends similar positions by arguing from principle. When debating materialist supporters of scientism/evolutionism, they usually faces a Kafka-esque situation:

[Early 20th century Czech writer Franz Kafka wrote about hopeless impasses with irresponsible bureaucracies, thus lending his name to the increasingly frequent situation.] Read More ›

In “First Person: The Bible as a Source of Testable Hypotheses”(Biblical Archaeology Review (Jul/Aug 2011) Hershel Shanks tells a story from Biblical arachaeology that explains more than I ever could about how materialism stifles science: In his new book Excavating the City of David, Ronny Reich of Haifa University treats archaeologist Eilat Mazar of the Hebrew University “dismissively” and accuses her of acting “unethically.” What did she do? She used the Bible as a guide to where to excavate.

Let me unpack this: As Eilat read the Bible, it seemed to indicate just where King David’s palace might be buried in the City of David—at least, it did to her. On this basis, she decided to dig there.

This was highly improper and unscientific, according to Ronny. When he heard that Eilat was using reasoning like this to find King David’s palace, he knew immediately that, proceeding in this way, “she would certainly find that building” (emphasis in original).

If she found the building, using the Bible, she did wrong. Shanks adds, Read More ›

When I was seven years old I figured it all out. It was a simple, logically inescapable conclusion. I believed that I was the product of a purely materialistic, random process that did not have me in mind. When I die and my chemistry shuts down I will cease to exist, enter eternal oblivion, and nothing I ever achieve or do will have any ultimate purpose or meaning. Furthermore, there is no ultimate justice. Hitler and the millions he tortured and murdered will have the same ultimate fate: pointless, meaningless oblivion. I lived my life in a complete state of depression, anger and despair for 43 years as a result of this notion, although I accomplished much during that time Read More ›