That’s all there is to it. The economic views of the Left are that simplistic.

Take karoli, for example. It is karoli’s understanding that working for the government is just as good, or even better, than working in private industry. Check this out:

Disparity Between Public and Private Employees’ Paychecks Proves Corporations Steal from Employees

Isn’t it amazing that the federal government has managed to keep pay rates and benefit levels competitive for their employees without breaking the bank? On the other hand, private industry has laid off a good chunk of their workforce while squeezing every last bit of productivity out of those who remain, held back raises while telling their employees they’re lucky to have a job, stopped making 401k matching contributions even after their profits have soared to record highs and they’ve banked a ton of cash that they’re NOT spending to hire or rehire laid-off employees.

…

I have a different question:

Can’t we now all agree that private industry workers are overpaid to pad the bottom line and do something about it?

Or this one:

Can’t we all agree that even a small portion of these bloated profits should go to the employees who make that bottom line happen?

Instead, it’s turned into an attack on unions, which is the other theme of this summer of discontent. Attack the unions. The reason Republicans opposed the bill extending federal aid to states for police, firefighters and teachers was because they were trying to break the unions.

I sit amazed every time one of these blatantly Marxist comments presents itself so openly. Karoli raises questions of ownership, of profit, and of government control of wealth and income. If it weren’t so tragic it might even by funny. But it’s not. C&L is one of the mainstream Left’s leading blogs, right alongside HuffPo and Kos.

When it comes to the question of evolution (big E or little e), without addressing the merits of the issue, the question of argumentation always comes into play. For instance, those of us who are overtly presuppositional make certain claims about the universe. But things are not so tidy in the world of scientists and especially not so in the world of the amateur philosopher. As an example, Jerry Coyne made a core presuppositional remark regarding his understanding of evolution:

If speciation is true, for instance, then common ancestry must also be true. (Why Evolution is True, p. 14)

This is not an evidential statement. Dr. Coyne has built a stair-step of apparent deductive necessity. In his view, if the former is ever the case then the latter, which is much broader in scope, must also be the case. If at any time any species can develop (by whatever model) then all species must have developed in this or similar fashion.

In order for this to be a must the argument requires a rejection of any alternative. If speciation is ever true then creation (special or general) is never true. I won’t argue against this in terms of a b&w fallacy. It isn’t. It is a simple statement regarding correctness and incorrectness as he sees it.

The argument does not include evidence. Speciation here is not, as I read it, an argument from evidence, though he does argue for speciation from evidence at other times. As stated, speciation is set up as a sort of equivalent to common ancestry. That is the core question that is argued: What is our ancestry? Though stated specifically, Dr. Coyne’s argument is a presuppositional argument for a metaphysical naturalism. Common ancestry sits as a euphemism for that purpose. Common ancestry is his analogy for naturalism. I suspect he might agree.

Dr. Coyne does argue from evidence to prove speciation. He takes a core Darwinian position. In this sense he is also an evidentialist. That’s ok. That’s what evidence is for – proving assumptions. But evidence is never a proof of presuppositions. Presuppositions come with no contingencies or dependencies. They stand alone. And that is the weakness of the must-ness of his position. He can prove speciation (to which I do not object in principle, though I would contend that there are models better than Darwin’s model) but he cannot prove naturalism.

This is the challenge that we face in defending the faith against illogic. It is not simply Christians who hold to presuppositions. The principle is not one that we own. What we do well to do in these cases is to show that there is more to life and a defense of anything than the preponderance of evidence. To do this makes us better thinkers and better representatives of intelligence.

When I was a kid in the 60s we thought only the original was worth listening to. Who, we thought, could ever be better than the Beatles? Over time my opinions changed. There are some remakes that are better than the original. Here are two that are better than the original group could ever have thought of doing these songs. (The first is a Beatles failure — a song that was too good for the group.)

The second also has a Spanish flavor:

And as much as I still enjoy The Mamas & The Papas, I really don’t know how the Frankie Laine or Ozzie Nelson versions would compare:

That said, there are times when the remake is better.

2. Why chocolate chip cookies are made with morsels instead of chips.

3. That I still consider myself intelligent while voting.

4. How anyone can think the jerkiness and pixelation of digital images is superior to film.

5. Is there a role that cannot be successfully interchanged between Rob Morrow, Jerry O’Connell, and Kyle Chandler?

6. Why posters here don’t use the “split” to keep more titles visible?  (4th from the right, top row of rich text edit controls.)

7. Why America’s Got Talent is judged by 2 Brits and 1 Canadian.

Truth is one thing; framing truth is another. The matter of framing truth presented one of significant characteristics of 20th century theology and its relationship with secular theology. Specifically, there is this thing called dialectical theology and its ramifications, both direct and indirect, are far-reaching. It is these questions of construct that concern the theologian; matters of evidence are reserved for technicians. (1)

The Christian framing of truth is the systematic attempt to present the truths of revealed Scripture in such a way as to reflect the content and intentions of God as accurately as possible as far as these have been revealed. Thus today’s framing is subject to the framing used by Scripture and modern framing methods which may find themselves in conflict with the method of Scripture are reject out of hand. During the last two centuries we have seen the modernist framing (with reason as the guide), the liberal framing (with sentiment and ethic as the guides), and most recently the growth of dialectical theology.

Dialectical theology – just the name conjures up images of conflict and other traits that go along with the more popular versions of dialectical philosophy and practice. But in this case it is not necessary what we look for. This dialectic of crisis (ala Barth) is more about existential conflict than social conflict. The available understanding God of this crisis is made into a product of humanness and is then reduced to something so other that an understanding of God that is taken from revelation becomes impossible.

The dialectics of theology parallels other disturbing dialectical movements. What I will call, for lack of a better term, dialectical linguistics, as seen in the efforts of Derrida, has produced a similar result. The deconstruction of language has brought a definition language to unnecessary lows and a preoccupation with minimizing content and thus a great deal of lost content. The same happens in dialectical theology – God is reduced and minimalist views of God take center stage. (This seems a legitimate reason to “fear” postmodernism.)

Liberal theology is hallmarked by the dialectic of a better world. The goal is to better the human condition by attacking need and resolving the external condition so that the person and society may blossom into the best possible world. The millennial fervor of the 19th century was more than a premillennial theological movement. The premills (including dispensationalists) looked for the fulfillment of prophecy and the soon return of Christ to establish His kingdom. But the postmills looked to establish the kingdom. The theological postmills would do so through the power of the church to better lives. Likewise the liberal postmills worked to produce a better human condition.

The idea of improved external conditions and adaptationism fit so nicely together that many of today’s evolutionists have a difficult time rejecting the teleological problem of building a better humanity and better world. It sounds so nice that it must be true. After all, will we not have a better humanity if we are better able to adapt to better conditions? Will we not evolve to become better people? Yes, they even believe that evolution defines moral senses and other sentiments.

This coupling of dialectical framing with everything else, even including evolution (at least as a method of applying it to life), leaves the secularist with a problem. If it is not possible for an improperly functioning being to attain the capability of properly justifying a conclusion (2), then how can the mechanisms of their dialectical approach be justified? They cannot. The dialectics of conflict, of redistribution, and of statism sit as walls without a foundation.

It would seem that Hegel had a bit of a grasp of this when he saw the need to redefine the Atonement in secular terms. He needed Christianity – or at least components of it. He needed a dialectical spiral to describe human progress as he saw it. Maslow (3) took this and applied it to psychology in order to better a person’s internal sense of self worth. Marx employed it in his effort to better the collective workers’ conditions. They all depended upon a Christian construct. There are few wholly secular constructs.

The damage of the dialectical approach is to reduce Christianity to a conflict instead of a resolution. I believe it is a false sense of the dualisms of Christianity that leads to these ends. Yes, I think life may be viewed in terms of dualism, but not as unfathomable (Platonic/Aristotelian), conflict-based (Hegelian), or permanent (Hindu, et al). Our dualism is what I might term a proximal dualism which does not end in a stalemate or endless cycle, but instead ends in the resolution of righteousness. It is entirely temporal. It remains teleological.

The secularist who presents Christianity as the servant of the state does not resolve anything. He merely fulfills a conflict-based dialectic. The liberal who persists in seeing the church as the servant of humanity’s betterment cannot reach the end because he has no end to be reached; no end to evolution. The dialectical theologian, it seems, ends his crisis by deconstructing God. The misframing of truth leads to all sorts of errors.

(2) Plantinga, A., Warrant and Proper Function, p. 193ff. Here Plantinga establishes his principle that the evolved mind cannot function properly and so cannot attain justification. He defends this against evolutionists in a series of essays which follow in Naturalism Defeated?

(3) Fraser, Ian, Hegel and Marx: the concept of need, pp, 50-51ff. For Hegel, (his equivalent to) self-actualization occurs when needs are met. Whenever a drive of need takes place then one is not free to be fully self-aware – one is distracted.

At the core of Christian Zionism is not the destruction of Jews and Israel. What is at the heart is the literal redemption of a great number of Jews though a conversion to Christ in the last times. It is an eschatological expectation. It is not a mere apocalyptic event.

Blossoming out of dispensational theology, the movement gained momentum in the late 40s and early 50s. This new momentum came about not simply because of the 1948 founding of Israel and the growth of dispensationalism. It was just before this time that the first Dispensational systematic theology was published. This 10-year effort of Lewis Sperry Chafer was completed in 1947. The events melded together into a watershed moment for the dispensationalist theological movement.

The injustice that is done theologically to the pro-Jew, pro-Israel movement in dispensational theology does nothing but enhance the power of the enemies of Israel and all Jews. It provides them with momentum and support in their efforts, both in their justification and in their propaganda. (It is material like that of Bruce Wilson which serves as this propaganda.)

Bruce Wilson could not have gone much further in promoting the death of Israel and Jews. His is a vulgar racism disguised as secularism. It is what the murderous Left does oh, so well.

In his criticism of Glenn Beck he does what so many do — he does not provide enough information for the reader/watcher to make an informed decision. What does Beck mean by “the Jews”? Does he mean those particular leaders who plotted to have Christ put to death? (Paul uses the term in a similar fashion in Romans.) Does he mean all Jews are Jesus killers as some covenant theologians (one of the non-dispensational segments of Christian theology) might proclaim. The fact is, given the short clip that he provides, we just have no way to know.

His argument is built on the premise that Christian Zionism is by its nature anti-Jew:

While the Anti-Defamation League has not been especially vigorous recently in opposing virulently anti-Semitic claims from Christian Zionists such as John Hagee, the ADL nonetheless can be considered an authoritative source concerning what anti-Semitism is. The ADL identifies Glenn Beck’s claim that “the Jews” killed Jesus as one of the top four most destructive of anti-Semitic lies.

But this leaves us with a simple question: Who killed Jesus? It’s the question that Wilson will not answer. That’s really not too hard. He was set up for trial and condemnation by a group of Jewish leaders with support from and execution by Rome. The condemned was ordered by one group and merely executed by the other.

Yes, it was Jews. It was not all Jews. There is no room for stereotyping or over-generalization. Those behaviors are destructive. Likewise there is no room for the same regarding dispensational theology. This is what so many Leftists do so well, and Clarkson’s TalktoAction serves as a prime example of people who would rather rant than investigate the whole scope of the situation.

(Oh, and btw. If Beck really did make a statement that is actually equivalent to the Jesus-killer accusation of some, I will be among the first in line to denounce such remarks. But I will await real evidence, not the rantings of insufficient evidence for socio-political points.)

As she announced her veto of Hawaii’s Civil Unions Bill HB444 on July 6th, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle echoed a standard argument traditionally advanced by leaders of the Christian right, that the issue of the civil rights of minority groups was so important that it should not be decided by an executive decision but, rather, by popular vote. It was a strange argument for a Jewish politician given the use of the democratic legislative process in pre-World War Two Germany to strip German-Jewish citizens of basic rights. But it also was the height of hypocrisy because that day, prior to announcing her veto, Lingle had sent a clear message of her executive decision: supporters of the civil union bill gathered at the Hawaii State House that day were second class citizens and Lingle was more than happy to use the power of the state to enforce the point. (italics mine)

That makes anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda a Nazi. He leaves zero room for disagreement. No dialogue. Just silence. Disagree and you are a Nazi. Period. End of discussion. Oh, he did not use the term “Nazi” but disguised it with “pre-World War Two Germany” as though that makes any difference. The only difference it makes is who can google his name and find it mixed with Nazi accusations. What a strategic slug.

Ok, so he promotes the restructuring of private society by the state to promote a special privilege. Homosexual marriage. What in the world does that have to do with Argentina? Well, it seems that the popular vote, with Wilson denounces as a Nazi strategy, was that nation’s mechanism for instituting homosexual marriage. That makes Argentina a Nazi nation. And now “scarce” (Whoever that is. Some chicken-hearted Leftist who is afraid of the light.) is a Nazi. And John Amato, racist that he is. And the rest of the Left. Oh, that that neat little circle includes

Yes, this was circular. Just a bit. But it shows just how convoluted Leftist logic really is. If you do it one way you are a Nazi. But don’t do it and you’re a theocrat or something similar. The arguments that they employ are framed for convenience — they will win at any cost. After all, without morality or the God behind it, there are no restriction on illogic. (Maybe I’ll follow this up with a VanTil/Plantinga post on naturalism and the absence of substance, with Wilson, Clarkson, Amato, et al, as suitable examples of stupidity.)

Flashback: I’m currently taking seminary classes and have begun to refresh my NT Greek so that I might take the course through TEDS’ online solution. While reading Summers’ text (Essentials of New Testament Greek), he pointed out that many omicron-stem nouns gained their iota in koine where it did not exist in classical.

Now back to the current time: So we go into a shop and on the shelf is an 1894 publication of Xenophon’s Anabasis, the first 4 books, in a volume designed for the student of classical Greek. Now, the day before I had been reviewing vocabulary & such in my Summers’ and Davis’ (Beginner’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament) texts. And just as Summers had mentioned, there was the term kuros, not kurios. Had I not been reading Summers I would have certainly been caught by surprise.

But apart from studying classical Greek, which I have in intention of pursuing to the level of a degree, the Anabasis (Anabasis (The Persian Expedition)) is worthwhile reading. The material takes place during the changeover from Artaxerxes to Darius. This is during Daniel’s time and might provide some useful background to what happens in Daniel. I have a lot more reading to do in assessing this.

Again, when it comes to studying NT Greek, it seems we are often shortsighted in our use of the language. Can you imagine the wars that might have come about were anyone to have actually translated baptidzo instead of transliterating it? And there is this term in Revelation, pharmakia, which gets a lot of attention in prophetic studies. But a book that I cited in an earlier post, Anatomy of Criticism, makes mention that in classical Greek this word would be translated scoundrel, and not drug-pusher or drug abuser. This makes me wonder if some of that nuance might be properly brought forward into our interpretation of Revelation.

But back to the main topic. There are lots of great, classic works available in thrift shops and antique shops. Like my 1984 gem that was priced at a mere $2.00, there is a great amount of valuable material that is lost to eternity unless those who care go out and snag it. Now! (Shopping: It ain’t just for the wife any more.)

In a 5-4 decision this morning, the Supreme Court said that a California law school can require a Christian group to open its leadership positions to all students, including those who disagree with the group’s statement of faith.

From the Constitution (we know this as the First Amendment):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  (italics mine)

I know some will disagree with me on this.  No doubt.  I am no legal scholar.  And I never claimed to be.  But what I can do is read plain language.

Here and here is everything from the court.

The ruling pitted the liberals against the conservatives in a 5-4 decision.

Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., and Kennedy, J., filed concurring opinions. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined.

First, as a matter of political property, peaceable assembly is owned by the people.  It is not the government’s to regulate.  If assembly is not peaceable, that’s another matter.

Second, rights are assumed.  They are natural, whether by natural law or natural right it does not matter.  They do not come by way of class.   Ginsburg justifies the class-based approach in her opinion as she supported the prejudices of Hastings’ antagonism against religious orthodoxy.

Before considering the merits of CLS’s constitutional arguments, we must resolve a preliminary issue: CLS urges us to review the Nondiscrimination Policy as written—prohibiting discrimination on several enumerated bases, including religion and sexual orientation—and not as a requirement that all RSOs accept all comers. The written terms of the Nondiscrimination Policy, CLS contends, “targe[t] solely those groups whose beliefs are based on religion or that disapprove of a particular kind of sexual behavior,” and leave other associations free to limit membership and leadership to individuals committed to the group’s ideology. Brief for Petitioner 19 (internal quotation marks omitted). For example, “[a] political . . .group can insist that its leaders support its purposes and beliefs,” CLS alleges, but “a religious group cannot.” Id., at 20.

And again

In diverse contexts, our decisions have distinguished between policies that require action and those that withhold benefits. See, e.g., Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U. S. 555, 575–576 (1984); Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U. S. 574, 602–604 (1983). Application of the less-restrictive limited-public-forum analysis better accounts for the fact that Hastings, through its RSO program, is dangling the carrot of subsidy, not wielding the stick of prohibition. Cf. Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U. S. 455, 463 (1973) (“That the Constitution may compel toleration of private discrimination in some circumstances does not mean that it requires state support for such discrimination.”).

This summary statement set her agenda.  She counters the group’s motivation to bypass Hastings’ “non-discrimination” rule specifically because it affects a group having a religious persuasion.   And she does this by arguing always from within the framework of class-based preference.

So … let’s try a hypothetical here:  What if an evangelical sought to join a “gay rights” group at Hastings, then brought in other evangelicals for the specific purpose of supplanting the class-based purpose of the group.  Would this be tolerated?  I maintain that it would be seen as disruptive.  And I suspect that Ginsburg would find motivation in a case that she cited as a matter regarding disruptive behavior.

As earlier pointed out, supra, at 1, 12–13, we do not write on a blank slate; we have three times before considered clashes between public universities and student groups seeking official recognition or its attendant benefits. First, in Healy, a state college denied school affiliation to a student group that wished to form a local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). 408 U. S., at
170. Characterizing SDS’s mission as violent and disruptive, and finding the organization’s philosophy repugnant, the college completely banned the SDS chapter from campus; in its effort to sever all channels of communication between students and the group, university officials went so far as to disband a meeting of SDS members in a campus coffee shop. Id., at 174–176. The college, we noted,could require “that a group seeking official recognition affirm in advance its willingness to adhere to reasonable campus law,” including “reasonable standards respecting conduct.” Id., at 193.

But as she continues, a contradiction appears:

But a public educational institution exceeds constitutional bounds, we held, when it “restrict[s]speech or association simply because it finds the views expressed by [a] group to be abhorrent.” Id., at 187–188. 15

Though she explains away this contradiction in her note:

15 The dissent relies heavily on Healy, post, at 13–17, but its otherwise exhaustive account of the case elides the very fact the Healy Court identified as dispositive: The president of the college explicitly denied the student group official recognition because of the group’s viewpoint. See 408 U. S, at 187 (“The mere disagreement of the President with the group’s philosophy affords no reason to deny it recognition.”). In this case, in contrast, Hastings denied CLS recognition not because the school wanted to silence the “viewpoint that CLS sought to express through its membership requirements,” post, at 17, n. 2, but because CLS, insisting on preferential treatment, declined to comply with the open-access policy applicable to all RSOs, see R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 390 (1992) (“Where the [State] does not target conduct on the basis of its expressive content, acts are not shielded from regulation merely because they express a discriminatory . . . philosophy.” (emphasis added)). As discussed infra, at 28–31, Hastings’ all-comers policy is paradigmatically viewpoint neutral. The dissent’s contention that “the identity of the student group” is the only “way of distinguishing Healy,” post, at 16, is thus untenable.  (bold mine)

What we are left with is a new conflict which she does not resolve:   In the position of Hastings we have the school acting (limiting its willingness to support) based on a belief system (class-based pluralism) and challenging the actions of a group (limiting its membership) which proceed out of an associated belief system (a position other than and opposed to class-based pluralism).

What stands out vividly in her writing is that she thinks religious discrimination must be direct and cannot be indirect.  She does not believe it possible that Hastings’ policy can oppose the religious content of a group that holds to a legal perspective with some motivation other than dialectical pluralism.  She completely ignores the possibility that the Nondiscrimination Policy itself might actually be discriminatory against all other views as it makes them, as she stated, “abhorrent.”

What Ginsburg misses, and other liberals like her miss, is that they are not practicing pluralism.

This afternoon we went down into Pittsburgh, on Penn, and walked through the market.  I look at this and wonder if it is the agora of old.  There are people.  Lots of people.  There are vendors on the street.  Sometimes it seems almost as many of them as shoppers.  But unlike the old world, there are no elders as sources of wisdom.  No gate to the city.  Nothing but commerce.  It’s not even as rich as Ephesus, where the vendors at least invested in their pagan religions.  The hedonists of today live for the moment.

What wisdom did exist in the past seems to have been turned into an historical reference.  Of course the church still operates.

A wedding was in process as we walked past and I shot these photos.

But with all the activity outside the church, this or any other church just sits as a building, waiting for people to come in.  Who aren’t coming in.

Now, like a television show, we flash back two weeks.  When the Evangelical Free Church national conference was being held in Columbus we hosted.  a pastor and his wife from a small town in Nebraska.  It was a joy to have them.  He was a Dallas grad from the early 60s, back when TEDS was still a quite young institution.  We discussed, but only briefly and I wish we could have spend more time on it, the change of rhetoric in evangelicalism today.

We call it outreach.  We talk about the unchurched.  We no longer call it evangelism.  We no longer refer to the unsaved or the lost.  It appears that sociological description has become our prescription.  It is any wonder that the agora is filled with people while the church is constantly becoming emptier and emptier?

(For those who care, all pics were shot with a Pentax K100D and the SMC Pentax-FA 28-200.)

As a presupposition, naturalism is held up as the first guiding principle of one brand of science. All energies are driven by this belief. It may not be a “religion” in any formal sense, but it suffices to take the place of religious belief and as such operates on the same plane. It thus serves as the explanation for why things are they way they are. This is also known as metaphysical naturalism.

As a working assumption, naturalism sets today’s ground rules for the scope of scientific inquiry. It is expressed as a condition for experimentation. Going further than a basic physicalist approach, which simply limits the scope of inquiry to the physical world, not addressing the realm of theology, the naturalistic assumption specifically addresses theology and tells the scientist that there is nothing outside of the physical world to consider, let alone to test.

This is not to suggest that science can or, if it could, it should, test the metaphysical. Not at all. The concern is that the naturalistic method makes the mistake of addressing the metaphysical. It declares that there is nothing other than the physical. This declaration is unnecessary to the work of inquiry and says more about the bias of the scientist than about the character of the results that the scientist might produce, though those do come with an evident taint.

Naturalism serves not only to frame science in general, but to frame evolutionary theory. It has been stated and restated often that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This argument is making two points. The first, with which I have no difficulty, points to genetics and biological change. Small-e “evolution” accounts for redheads, blonds, and short people. Few argue that point.

But naturalism often serves as a mechanism for the bundling of naturalism and evolution into the convenient package “N&E” (as A. Plantinga calls it). I call it “big-E” Evolution. It amounts to a homogenization of both metaphysical and methodological naturalism, along with evolutionary processes, into a convenient answer and framing for (and thus control of) science. It then gains the capacity to co-opt science away from anyone religious and claim its ownership only for the atheist.

The practical question that faces the Christian is how to reframe science and faith so that reality is actually represented better through a Christian world view than through the perspective of the naturalist. Loraine Boettner attempted this in the 1950s, facing the attacks of the then quite-demanding challenge of logical positivism. He first acknowledged the nature of the Bible and its relationship with science.

The Bible, of course, was not written from the scientific point of view, and the person who attempts to deal with it as if it were a text book on science will be badly disappointed. Written long before the rise of modern science, it was intended primarily not for scientists and intellectuals but for the common people. Its language is that of the common people, and its subject matter is primarily religious and spiritual. Had it been written in the language of modern science or philosophy it would have been unintelligible to the people of earlier ages, and in fact would also be unintelligible to multitudes in our own day. Moreover, while we certainly have no desire to disparage the scientific accomplishments of our day but wish rather to accept them and use them to the full, we must point out that textbooks on science have to be rewritten at least once every generation and that so rapidly is scientific research progressing in our day that most books on scientific subjects are obsolete within ten years, But in the Bible we have a Book which has had no revision for multiplied centuries and which appeals to the heart and intelligence of people today as strongly as it has ever done in the past. Those who go to the Bible for spiritual and intellectual inspiration find it as fresh and inspiring as if it had been written but yesterday. (“The Inspiration of Scripture”, Part 4, http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/bible/boettner/inspire4.html)

He furthers his argument exposing the problem of scope and the unwarranted advance of naturalism into the realm of theology. He also exposes the failure of Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

Perhaps the primary reason there has been so much confusion regarding the relationship between religion and science is the failure on the part of so many people to discriminate between facts and opinions. True science deals only with established facts; opinions may be as varied as the people who express them. Organic evolution, for instance, as it is usually set forth rules out the supernatural and contradicts the Bible. But it must be remembered that organic evolution is not science, but only a theory, an hypothesis. Not one of the five arguments usually advanced to support it is sound, and many distinguished scientists do not believe in the theory of organic evolution but in fiat creation as taught in the Bible.

Though some have given substance to a couple of the points, the criticism of this theory set and its vagueness remain intact. It was during this same period that Michael Polanyi, hardly a part of the creationist community, also described the theory as both vague and inadequate.

There is a fundamental vagueness in this theory which tends to conceal its inadequacy. It consists in the fact that we lack any acceptable conception in which the way genetic changes modify ontogenesis – a deficiency which is due in its turn to the fact that we can have no clear conception of living beings, as long as we insist on defining life in terms of physics and chemistry. (Polanyi, Michael, Personal Knowledge, Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, 1962, University of Chicago Press, p. 383. )

The vague nature of the theory remains. This was recently exposed by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini in their recently-published What Darwin Got Wrong. Yet this is not the strongest implication of their effort. What they provide to the scientific community, and more importantly to the student of science in general and evolution specifically, is that models do not so easily provide an adequate explanation to dealing with information.

The authors begin with one model. They accept the biological engine of evolution. They follow the pattern of genetic biologists such as Stephen Jay Gould. Yet they recognize the problems inherent in punctuated equilibrium and propose a general alternative. Another model. Another attempt to provide an explanation through a model.

It is this model structure with is the greatest failure of naturalistic evolution. The movement’s scientists and theorists are bent on being naturalists (metaphysical philosophers, that is) instead of just being scientists. The use of abstract theory is still acceptable. It is a necessary mechanism for explaining many things. But when wrapped in naturalism it becomes a scarecrow against any implication of any deity affecting the universe. They become theologians instead of scientists.

Our response can be helpful. Clarifying to the scientists that theology is outside of their venue can help them do better work. The irony is that this can be best proposed by the scientists who is also a theologian. I think the reason for this is a valuable consideration. It is the theologian who can best avoid the dualism of science versus faith. We know the relationship and do not have to deal in conflict and other dialectical issues. But in the world of dialectical science, dialectical linguists, and dialectical theology, this might prove refreshing. Hopefully we can express this clearly.

Oh … Bird is the word.

So much could be said.  But there some times that leaving people to speak for themselves seems quite enough.

Enjoy.

But Christians have held sway in the biological arena. With the difference being that we both understand and accept the inherent individual dignity of the human being, Christians are able to effectively attack the eugenics agenda that still holds sway in the progressive bioethics world.

Of course not all progressive bioethicists hold to the eugenics agenda. (See Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans.) And the progressive world often deals in bioethical areas outside of human concerns, such as food supply issues (genetic crop engineering and its potential impact on food availability), in a more visible fashion.

Yet Hannah Zale explains that

“progressive bioethics” is best understood as the application of the scientific method to policymaking, emphasizing data-driven decision making and transparent methodologies.

This and similar definitions of “ethics” which leave the matter in the simple world of pragmatism and “science” (whatever she means by that) we still have language which cannot automatically release us from the issue of eugenics. Without a moral foundation in Christian theism the chains remain.

Ronald Bailey raises the divisions in the movement to some clarity. The progressives are divided on matters such as nanotech and again often come to conclusions found in practical matters. To their credit, though, the concern of individual rights is paramount to some. Yet we see this as a half-way point as “rights” are seen by progressives as coming from the collective and the government; rights do not proceed from God. Again, we have an opportunity to move the Christian ethic through the various channels with a much higher level of security and sanctity.

As we develop curriculum for adults, let us not forget the children. Curriculum for education — for home schools, for secondary, and of course for college, are equally imperative. The battle rages on. Release the hounds!

2. The Constitution has something to say about wrongs and payment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

3. President Obama has demanded an advance payment of $20B from British Petroleum to compensate the injured for their losses.

4. There has been no court case, no legislation, nothing resembling due process and the rule of law in this situation. BP has been penalized without prosecution.

This is a shakedown. But it is much more. This amounts to an unconstitutional control of a company based in another nation.

Of course he has his apologists. Just as Barney Frank admitted that the nationalization of health care initiative did not consider jurisdiction, so also those defenders and protectors of political violence are also defenders of bypassing law. Kos & C&L. And the Jew-hating Arianna Huffington.

This is the thuggery of a nouveau communist who demands what he wants from private corporations. He stated his intentions to interfere directly into the BP’s retention procedures. He already hires and fires at will in the US. What will happen if churches, and Christiansm in general speak out against this radical behavior? Will he fine us? Will he come after our churches? Audit our taxes? What?

Or shall we just keep quiet?