New Tag

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It asks "how do you know" and "what does it mean to say you know".

The "Controversy" tag is getting a lot of use. I will be adding "epistemology" to some of these posts (sort of a sub-tag).

Old Animals

There is an eye catching article at Science Daily. It is a tempting sound bite to grab,

"The longest lived in both species was 2,740 years and 4,270 years, respectively. At more than 4,000 years old, the deep-water black coral is the oldest living skeletal-accreting marine organism known."

But that is granting too much.

This coral doesn't have a birth certificate. There is no "Made in China (C) 731 BC" stamped on the bottom.

The only way to date it is by making measurements, and using assumptions about initial conditions and processes.

This particular study used carbon-14. A carbon atom usually weighs 12 (6 protons and 6 neutrons), but some have two extra neutrons. This carbon is chemically the same, but will eventually degrade into nitrogen. By measuring the amount of nitrogen in molecules which should have carbon (or substances with nitrogen contamination), and comparing it to the amount of carbon-14 remaining, then - assuming we know the starting ratio of carbon 14, and that nothing has caused the nitrogen to escape, or added nitrogen - you can determine the date.

Carbon-14 dating has already had some "adjustments" (called calibration) to its calendar. The amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is assumed to be constant, and similar to current levels. Of course this is not true, so there is a constant process of trying to figure out what the levels were in the past (which relies on other dating mechanisms...).

Texas Heretics Undermine Faith

in Evolution!

An interesting article from Science Daily.

"Among the concerns, the scientists say, is an amendment to the biology standards that attacks one of evolution's key principles: that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor."

The idea of "common descent" is unfalsifiable (it is/would be history - history is not repeatable or observable). It is truly "dogma".

"Downplaying evolution's place in science 'only serves to confuse students,' the scientists say in their letter to the board."

This sounds like a proclamation against heretics - "they will jeopardize the salvation of those weak in the faith".

If evolution is obvious, and true; then there is nothing to fear. No attack can overcome the truth.

I am reminded by the D.M.S. Watson quote:

"The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible"

Some might say, "this quote is 80 years old". True, since then no easier to believe natural alternative to evolution has been proposed. Many of the "proofs" of evolution have been revealed to be hoaxes. Studies have shown that morphology (vital to analysis of extinct animals) has no correlation to actual genetic code.

Flood geology had no textbook until the 70's.

Evolution has gotten harder to believe, while the alternative gets stronger.

As I have said before, atheism needs evolution. As Christians, we are free to reject it or accept it. I say, reject it. It is junk science, and it makes for bad theology.

I will close with a quote that deserves additional unpacking:

"Moreover, 'fact' does not mean 'absolute certainty.' The final proof of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" (Stephen J. Gould, "Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes")

Modernity began when man rejected the absolute truth of God, seeking to replace it with absolute truth without God (especially miracles like special creation).

The failure of modernity has given us post-modernism - where there is no absolute truth.

Know Your Heretics - Sabellius

The heresy of Sabellius is more commonly referred to as "modalism".

Sabellianism, like Arianism, is a perversion of the doctrine of the Trinity - a very hard doctrine. It is understandable that some confusion might arise, and it is good to have these things spelled out very explicitly.

Modalism exists today. It is said T.D. Jakes is a modalist, and that "United Pentecostals" or "Oneness Pentecostals" all teach modalism.

Anyone who emphasizes "God is one" while saying there are three "modes" or "roles" (rather than the key phrase "persons") is likely a modalist, or at least may be muddled in the direction of modalism. It is the idea that God is one, and that the Father was God in the Old Testament, Jesus was God on earth, and the Holy Spirit is God today (not all three eternally).

Modalism is easily shown to be false:

1. Jesus talks to the Father (John 12:28)
2. All three persons of God were present at Jesus' baptism (Matt. 3:16-17)
   
3. The witness of heaven is three-fold (1 John 5:7)
   

Additionally, God is love - love is a relationship - a relationship needs more than one person.

Failure to understand the Trinity may lead to worshipping the wrong God (as the Muslims do). It can also damage the marriage relationship (the submission of the woman is related to the submission of Jesus to the Father).

Lapsed Catholics

Ignatius Insight has a link to an interesting article. It is sad to see the "seeker sensitive" approach invading the Catholic church (although, it has invaded Islam [citation needed] :), so I shouldn't be surprised)...

The choice bits:

"We have to use tools that respond to the criterion that most people, de facto, use for religion today (whether we like it or not) -- experience."... "'This is what I (want to) feel or think.'"

A lot of ways to go... the most important is that our feelings and thoughts are almost always sinful and broken (rebellious). Coddling people's feeling and sinful thoughts isn't Biblical, and is only going to produce false converts (I know from experience).

Biblical conversion comes from brokenness (Jesus says we must "hunger" and "thirst" for the kingdom). The "door" is "low" and "narrow" (you enter on your knees). The audience at Pentecost was "pricked in their heart".

Preach sin and wrath. Yes, it is not popular. Some people will walk out. Some will call you hateful, intolerant, unloving.

But you will produce genuine repentance.

Stem Cells and Diabetes

(I will need to do a post on God and Irony)

Hot on the heels of Obama's announcement of federal funding for ESCR, Science Daily has an article showing the promise of stem cells in curing diabetes.

I'll select the choice part:

"The answer is adult stem cells"

Mohler Strikes Again!

Albert Mohler is showing his strength in the "culture war"... This time with some chilling words from Britain.

I will extract the core to set the stage for where I would like to go with this:

"In other words, it is just fine to waste their lives and destroy their human dignity, but it is not fine to 'waste their organs.'

Professor Campbell's moral compass came into clear focus when he quipped: 'I am sure very few of those on the transplant list would rather die than accept an organ from an aborted foetus.'

That may be so, but no morally sane person can deny that the use of some organs would be morally abhorrent. What about the use of organs taken from executed criminals in China? Is it 'a shame to waste their organs?'"

I am (as you should realize by now) only interested in the theology.

Without true theology, people will often resort to pragmatism (all this talk about "waste" - if there is no absolute right or wrong, then "right = efficient / wrong = inefficient").

We see the same arguments in the end of life debate - it is "wasteful" (inefficient) to prolong life, better to kill the old and infirm (life unworthy of life).