10 – 12 February 2012 — Evolution Weekend

I’ve never really been a supporter of this – and I’m not a pastor to make these decision – but maybe there is a way that Church could participate in a Graceful way. Evolution Weekend is an opportunity for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science. An ongoing goal has been to elevate the quality of the discussion on this critical topic, and to show that religion and science are not adversaries. Rather, they look at the natural world from quite different perspectives and ask, and answer, different questions. ….. Indeed, the world’s various faith


Zimmerman disputes the rise of YEC among clergy

A biologist with scientific interest in the evolution-creation debate attributed a recent LifeWay Research poll reporting that three-fourths of Protestant pastors reject evolution, and nearly half believe the earth is about 6,000 years old, to a commonly held but false idea that science and faith cannot be reconciled. Michael Zimmerman, academic vice president and provost at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., said he doubts that the 73 percent of pastors who told the Southern Baptist Convention research department that they disagreed with the statement “I believe God used evolution to create people” are a representative sample. Either way, Zimmerman said,

Christian Education / Religion and Politics / Science / etc.

A Significant (?) Blow Against Creationism in Britain

Richard Dawkins’s theological/philosophical dilettantism aside, I would gladly hoist a pint in celebration with him over this news: Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkinsand Sir David Attenborough , are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teachingcreationism in science classes. (Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists via The Guardian) To my mind, the biggest question anti-creationists should be exploring is “How do we stop this thing?” Contrary to expectations, creation ‘science’ has spread out of the United States and broken through geographical, political and religious


There has never been any real evidence for evolution – no ‘caught in the act’ evidence

Well… until now… Scientists have caught the process of evolution in action as a species of Australian lizard abandons egg-laying for live births. The variety of skink, which is snake-like with four tiny legs, has been found laying eggs along the coast of New South Wales. However, the same yellow-bellied three-toed lizard living in the colder mountainous region is giving birth to offspring like a mammal does. (here) God is still creating… contrary to the deists…


Evolving TB bacteria, and two design problems for creationists

India Reports Completely Drug-Resistant TB (link and picture via Wired) If only God hadn’t intelligently designed mycobacterium tuberculosis to adapt to our advances in medical treatment! The appearance of design is one of the more potent weapons in the creationist arsenal, probably because it appeals to some aspect of common sense. But if creationists can infer design from such things, perhaps we should insist they take their inferences to the logical end: the designer is intelligent, and cruel. They never will, of course, keeping in line with a long history of shoddy interpretation of cherry-picked ‘evidence’. But this nicely


Ken Ham is slowly killing the American Church

America’s Protestant pastors overwhelmingly reject the theory of evolution and are evenly split on whether the earth is 6,000 years old, according to a survey released Monday by the Southern Baptist Convention. When asked if “God used evolution to create people,” 73% of pastors disagreed – 64% said they strongly disagreed – compared to 12% who said they agree. Asked whether the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, 46% agreed, compared to 43% who disagreed. via Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth’s age – CNN Belief Blog – Blogs. Lets connect some dots… shall we?


Would Radical Liberal Tony Breeden use 1937 medical science?

What? No? Then why does he quote 1937 science? I mean, honestly, does our good friend have nothing better to do expect fight Ham’s battles for him? At that point, one can easily detect Tony’s presuppositions about science, that it never changes, never gathers evidences, never formalizes a hypothesis into a theory… and then he goes on to quote Darwin… tisk tisk tisk… He notes, Just as he tries to poison the well by saying that the Bible teaches geocentrism and a flat earth. These straw man arguments concerning the Bible have been so oft-refuted. He insists on a woodenly literal interpretation