I am amazed that Christians still use the worn-out " Irreducible complexity " argument which has been proven to be untenable and false every time they are brought up. This article is no different than the " flagellum Motor, " an organism seemed to be so complex it could not function if it were changed in anyway or if its " fine tuning " was off. Then came real science which had proven that you could remove part of the motor and it still functioned in one way or another and POOF!!!! another Christian apologetic false claim gone. It should be noted that this article is from the " Institute For Creation Research " which as the name implies is a Christian apologetic agenda driven organization which means nothing they say is credible or at …show more content…
The Masters degree at the end of his name is NOT for biology it is for in bio-technology. Brian Thomas only has an Under-graduate Bachelor 's degree in biology. This means on a scholarly level Brian Thomas is NOT qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject of biology like a PHD can. However is qualified to give an under-educated opinion on it. Unless his paper is published in a Scientific journal and found to be valid by other biologists his opinions are nothing but typical subpar un-thought-out Christian apologetics at best. All one has to do to figure this article out as scientifically unacceptable and false is to look at the references for his work. Brian Thomas gives two references to help validate his own work both of which are written by himself no less. Talk about Christian circular logic. The only other reference given is from a reporter for the NPR. All three references are hardly what one would consider serious sources of reference. And they certainly would be considered unacceptable if given to the peer review process which all scientific claims must undergo to be considered as
Everyday millions of people across the globe use the internet; many never even leave the computer desk. In the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid” the author Nicholas Carr, brings up the point that our brains are losing their attention span. He explained that many, including himself, are finding it harder to read long groups of text and articles. Though Carr brings up a good point, his argument lacked factual information, was a little dull, contained next to no credible sources, and is all over the board with he’s ideas, all of these things made his argument weak. Carr’s opening paragraph really grabs your attention, by using quotes from the movie A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick’s.
Carr is an established writer and had previously written several books before this article had been published. This makes Nicholas Carr a convincing source of information, as are the friends he mentions in the article. There are also multiple quotes such as “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” which is a quote from blogger, Bruce Friedman. There is a multitude of highly credible people who have writings with the same views on the topic that Carr has. A few examples of these people range from Bruce the blogger, the pathologist from Michigan Med school, to a developmental psychologist and author from Tufts University.
He earned his pH.D. in zoology at the University of Chicago. At the University of British Columbia David was also a professor in the genetics department from the year of 1963 until he had to retire which was in the year of 2001. He is well known for his books which include knowledge about nature and the environment.
I suspect he might would give Darwin extra weight. Or he 's just showing that you can 't only know one side of the story as in both sides are always necessary for a whole sense of the
In the Ted talk on "Battling Bad Science", the speaker Ben Goldacre tackles the lack of critical analysis by the public of scientific claims by debunking popular medical claims and exposing methods of borderline falsifying evidence behind claims. Science is a unique subject varying from all others in many rights, particularly when it comes to the critical analysis of its claims by the general public. Unlike politics, law, history, etc., science is given huge leeway to make uncontested claims by the public, where as in other fields their claims are scrutinized before being accepted. On the contrary, people willingly expect dodgy “scientific” claims which often contradict themselves.
James’ evidence is not scientific or concrete in the way Hamblin’s is, but is effective in its own way. Hamblin appeals to logic, and James appeals to emotion. Both authors use good evidence and sources that are
The ten points that Michael Shermer presents and wants people to know when encountering a claim are the sources’ reliability of the claim, sources making similar claims, sources’ validity, how the claim works with how the world works, counterarguments, the evidence’s importance, the logic behind the claim, solid evidence, claim having logic and evidence to explain the old phenomenons, and last, but not least, personal beliefs influencing the claim. Creation science breaks at least three of these points. One of the points that creation science breaks is that personal beliefs are driving the claim. Religion contributes tremendously to creation science. Because there is religion is involved with creationism, there is bias to it, and people who
He points out that the Bible cannot be taken literally because sometimes it can be interpreted in different ways. The Bible was written for the common people and illiterate to understand, and to prove his point he mentions that the Bible gives God a body like ours while theologies believe God has no such features. He moves to his main point about who has the authority to determine what is true and untrue. He argues that what is scientifically proven will to understand the Bible true meaning.
The people that made these claims were later notified if their claims were thought to be true or
A long bearded Charles Darwin strides onto a large stage. He stops in the middle of the stage and turns toward his audience. “How could you do this?” he says to the audience. “My idea was to explain where the origin of life began!
(Star Tribune, April 3, 1997). I point this out because I hear sometimes that almost all scientists are atheists which is not
“Scientist: 'We Didn't Create Life from Scratch'.” CNN, Cable News Network, 21 May 2010,
Hesiod’s account of creation, as outlined in the Theogony offers one of the most detailed and accepted theories of creation in the Greek culture. On the other hand, the Biblical account of creation, regarded as a Hebrew culture creation account, is to date one of the most widely acknowledged and accepted versions across various cultures seeking explanations for the origin of life and the earth. However, even though these creation accounts originate from two different cultures, they share some thought-provoking parallels in terms of their content and intentions, as well as some contrasts that make each of the creation accounts unique. Both Hesiod’s and the biblical creation accounts are similar in that they argue that prior to the beginning of creation events, the earth was merely a void that had no shape or form and this void was filled with darkness.
Both modernism and postmodernism worldviews approach ideas from a different perspective than the Christian worldview. The divisive central point is the reason for existence. Modernism and postmodernism are humanistic in structure. The Christian worldview is based on God. Knowledge base within modernism and postmodernism relies on the human based creation, while Christian worldview rests on the teachings of the Bible.
Introduction: Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox go head to head in a battle to match their superior intellect. The debate was titled “Has Science Buried God?” Lennox also announced his new book “Gods Undertaker”. The John Lennox - Richard Dawkins Debate - bethinking.org. 2015