Showing posts with the label Humanist

Evolutionists Stoking the Fires of Censorship Again

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  We have seen reports where free speech is on the decline in Britain, such as when preachers get locked up for a "hate crime" ( here is just one example ), but atheists and evolutionists are galloping toward full educational censorship against anything even resembling creation or design. I reckon they not only oppose freedom of speech, but freedom of thought as well.  "Humanists" increased thought control and bushwhacked science education already , but it appears that they want to close any loopholes. Evolution must reign supreme in Welsh education, and there can be no reasonable doubt that the rest of Britain will follow suit. Hail Darwin, blessed be! Evolutionists are not content to misrepresent and even lie about what creationists actually uphold, but they disingenuously redefine "science" in materialistic terms. Also, they will claim that Christian parents, teachers, and ministries are "indoctrinating" when in f

Naturalism is not Conducive to Science

Secularists have been somewhat effective in portraying a "war between science and religion" and giving the impression that if someone is going to be a scientist, he or she must have a worldview that is rooted in naturalism. That is, no non-atheists need apply. Such propaganda utterly false, and one example is the dishonest use of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" . Image credit: NASA (use does not imply endorsement of site contents) If you study on the propaganda and do a little research, you'll see that it's ridiculous. The founders of modern science were Christians, and many of those were biblical creationists . Science depends on methods that are repeatable, testable, observable, and so forth. An atheistic worldview is incoherent, with random processes of evolution as one of it's main foundations. You can't do science that way. Meanwhile, there have been and still are many people who believe the Bible and do science quite well. Many people today

Podcast — The Dangers of Modern Psychology

Psychology has been around in one form or another for a long time. We wonder why we act the way we do, why tinhorn anti-creationists want to "prove" their superior intelligence by acting like angry children (which includes libel, lying outright, and trolling), why the woman in the upstairs apartment throws leftover chicken on the lawn instead of using a garbage bin, and more. Sometimes, psychology is fun to ponder. Sigmund Freud / Max Halberstadt / Wikimedia Commons / PD Unfortunately, modern psychology is primarily based on materialistic and evolutionary ideas; perhaps that is why there are many schools of thought, and variations on those as well. None of them has the answers, old son. A psychologist present a buffet-style treatment drawn from several sources. Ironically for me, in my apostate time, I benefited from a variation on "probablistic atheist" Albert Ellis' REBT (who said that his views had nothing to do with his therapy methods). Psychology

My Favorite Martian Fallacy

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen What is the attraction to Mars? Maybe people want to go there because the place has atmosphere. Well, there one possibility. Well, it's very thin and mostly carbon dioxide, so that's not it. Maybe it's the long romantic notion of going there. Wild stories about a lady standing on the surface of Mars get people's imaginations a mite agitated. Besides, Venus is so hot and acidic, it melts space probes, so people aren't getting serious notions of visiting there. Panoramic view from Curiosity Mars Rover / Image Credit: NASA, JPL-Caltech, MSSS When people develop a skill in spotting logical fallacies , they can find them in many situations. (Someone must have noticed the fallacy of ambiguity when I equivocated on the word "atmosphere" just above.) I was watching a rerun of My Favorite Martian . It was originally aired in October 1963, and called " Man or Amoeba ". You can watch it here if you have a mind to. If so,

Varieties of Evolutonists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Experiences, observations and material that I have have read brought me to these speculations. With more time, reading and experience, I may adjust some of them later. Some people will play with semantics, claiming that the word "evolutionist" is something contrived by creationists in an effort to malign proponents of evolution. Their "sources" for such an accusation are anti-creationist sites that simply make the assertion without evidence. The word evolutionist is indeed a valid word that gives a useful description, so I see no need to change my use of it. Vehement anti-creationists Having an online ministry brings out people who hate biblical creationists who will seek our Websites, Weblogs, social media areas and so on. They will lash out at us with assertions and ridicule (often calling us "liars" and "science deniers") because we disagree with naturalistic and atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence

Humanistic Evolutionary Indoctrination Hijacks Science Education

Atheists and evolutionists will sometimes say that they want to have "an honest discussion" with creationists about origins science. Unfortunately, they obtain information from anti-creationist sources.  regarding what creationists believe and teach. From their questions and statements, we can tell that they seldom attempt to understand what creationists really  believe and teach. This kind of approach leads to absurd conversations resembling: "You misrepresented the biblical creationist position". "No, I didn't! I did not  misrepresent it! Prove that I did!" "You made assertions but did not substantiate anything". "Liar! What I said is true!" Sigh.  Such illogical assertions are generally based on repeating what has been read from spurious sources. The British Humanist Association gave an excellent example of the inaccurate information that has been spread about creationists. They listed several "arguments" t

Evolution, Psychology and Shots in the Dark

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Here is something ironic. Astrology has the trappings of science, and astrologers contend that it is  science, but  it is rejected by scientists . On the other hand, psychology does not have much that is consistent to really define it as science (repeatable, testable, observable, predictability, specificity and so on), yet it is considered a science. Darwinism lacks many of the same elements that define a science. If rejection of accountability to God was in the direct criteria to define science, astrology would probably be accepted as a science as well. Like astrology, psychology has a great deal of uncertain predictions that can be plugged into a wide range of possibilities to claim successful results. Modern psychology is generally considered to have had its genesis with Sigmund Freud (a.k.a. Frood-dude ). Freud, Jung and others were influenced by Darwinian ideas , and most psychologies are humanistic in their procedures. For the most part, there are se

"Pieces of Light" by Julie Cave — Book Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Pieces of Light  by Julie Cave is the third book in the Dinah Harris series. Although it can be read as a "stand alone" book, I recommend reading the first two books, Deadly Disclosures and The Shadowed Mind to fully understand the characters and situations. I am not going to give out too much information and spoil the story for you.  Like the second book, Pieces of Light  does not follow a formula to seem like a rehash of the previous books. In fact, it opens with the killer writing his thoughts in a journal while in prison. Then we are taken back to how it started. Someone hates Christians and Christianity, saying that we're all hypocrites because of what happened to him — he was the victim of abuse by a church-going man that people thought was wonderful. His response when he was older was to bomb churches. But he did not want total devastation, he wanted to "make a statement". This book does not deal directly with evol

Evolutionist Propaganda Increases

Once again, I feel compelled to say this: If creation science and/or Intelligent Design did not have viable interpretations of the facts, then evolutionary theories would be able to put the competition away forever. But instead, "science" must be protected (such as banning the teaching of creation in British schools ). Perhaps evolutionists know that their system is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and have to keep the competition away? And then Dawkins gloats about educational censorship. Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist Association (BHA) are celebrating this week. Following the launch of their ‘Teach Evolution, not Creationism‘ campaign in September last year, the UK’s Department of Education has revised the regulations relating to teaching about origins in government funded schools. Those ‘free schools’ that teach creation or intelligent design (ID) in science lessons will, from now on, have their financial support withdrawn. Despite the media furore