Google: Religious Pro-Lifers Need Not Apply

Seems like the Google we all love has some very one-sided rules when it comes to advertizing.  While Google accepts ads in support of abortion, they don’t allow “abortion and religion-related content.” This is from the UK’s Daily Mail:

[Google’s]  Dublin-based advertising team replied: “At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content’.”

Google does, however, accept adverts for abortion clinics, secular pro-abortion sites and secularist sites which attack religion.

The Christian Institute has now started legal proceedings against Google on the grounds that it is infringing the Equality Act 2006 by discriminating against Christian groups.

It is seeking damages, costs and the permission to publish its advertisement.

Mike Judge, Christian Institute spokesman, said: “For many people, Google is the doorway to the internet.

“If there is to be a free exchange of ideas then Google cannot give special free speech rights to secular groups whilst censoring religious views.

“To say that religious sites with material on abortion are ‘unacceptable content’ (while) advertising pornography is ridiculous.”

Funny how making this ad hoc connection to religion only seems to muzzle one side– the pro-life side (how many religions do you know that would advertize in support of abortion?).   Google’s values aren’t nearly as good as their search engine.

/by

Christians Beware: Intellectual Predators at College

When it comes time for college, parents often think they’re sending their children off to a religiously-neutral site to learn objective facts about the real world.  Unfortunately, they’re far more likely to drop their child into one of the most liberal, anti-Christian environments anywhere on American soil.  That’s where some college professors act as intellectual predators, purposefully seeking to undermine the faith of young Christian students.

Some professors make no effort to hide this. Professor Richard Rorty, who taught at Wellesley, Princeton, the University of Virginia and Stanford, admitted that he and many of his colleagues are actively trying to destroy the faith of Christian kids in college.  He warned parents to recognize that as professors “we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.”  He said that we professors “arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.”

Rorty followed that wake-up call to parents with an overt poke in the eye.  He claimed that students are fortunate to find themselves under the control “of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.”

”Did you hear that parents?  According to Rorty and his like-minded colleagues, you and your Christian views are dangerous.  That’s why they are intent on mocking your religious beliefs to the point that your children are too embarrassed to admit them.  They want your children to abandon your “homophobic” beliefs and adopt their way of thinking.  That way, your kids will turn out more like them than like you.

Professor Steven Weinberg, of MIT, Harvard, and now the University of Texas, harbors the same anti-religious agenda expressed by Rorty.  An atheist and physicist, Weinberg said, “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that.” If scientists can destroy the influence of religion on young people, “then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

I thought imparting truth was the most important contribution a professor could make.  Not for Weinberg—it’s his anti-religious agenda.  In fact, his anti-religious agenda is so overriding that it distorts his interpretation of the evidence.  The discoveries of modern science don’t point away from God, but directly to Him. Unfortunately, few college students know this, which allows Weinberg to spin the evidence the other way.  In doing so, he accomplishes what he believes is the most important contribution of a college professor– destroying the parent’s religion in the eyes of their children.

These two professors are not atypical.  A recent survey shows that professors are five times more likely to be atheists than the general public.  It also found that 53% of college professors view Evangelical students unfavorably.  In fact, Evangelicals are, by far, the most disliked religious group on campus (Muslims were not liked by 22% which means that in the United States of America, professors are two and half times more likely to dislike an Evangelical student than a Musllim student).

No wonder 75% of Christian kids leave the church in College.  It’s anything but a religiously-neutral environment.  Equip yourself or your child before attending.

/by

"Designer Wouldn’t Have Done it that Way" Argument Backfires

The following is an excerpt from I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist  (page 160-161):  Darwinists have long argued that if a designer existed, he would have designed his creatures better. Stephen Jay Gould pointed this out in his book The Panda=s Thumb, where he cited the apparent sub-optimal design of a bony extrusion pandas have for a thumb. The problem for the Darwinists is that this actually turns out to be an argument for a designer rather than an argument against one.

First, the fact that Gould can identify something as sub-optimal design implies that he knows what optimal design is. You can=t know something is imperfect unless you know what perfect is. So Gould=s observation of even sub-optimal design implies an admission that design is detectable in the panda=s thumb. (By the way, this is another reason the Darwinists are wrong when they assert that Intelligent Design is not science. When they claim something isn=t designed correctly, they are implying they could tell if it were designed correctly. This proves what ID scientists have been saying all alongCID is science because design is empirically detectable.)  Second, sub-optimal design ­doesn=t mean there=s no design. In other words, even if you grant that something is not designed optimally, that ­doesn=t mean it=s not designed at all. Your car isn=t designed optimally, yet it=s still designedCit certainly ­wasn=t put together by natural laws.

Third, in order to say that something is sub-optimal, you must know what the objectives or purpose of the designer are. If Gould ­doesn=t know what the designer intended, then he can=t say the design falls short of those intentions. How does Gould know the panda=s thumb isn=t exactly what the designer had in mind? Gould assumes the panda should have opposable thumbs like those of humans. But maybe the designer wanted the panda=s thumbs to be just like they are. After all, the panda=s thumb works just fine in allowing him to strip bamboo down to its edible interior. Maybe pandas don=t need opposable thumbs because they don=t need to write books like Gould; they simply need to strip bamboo. Gould can=t fault the designer of that thumb if it ­wasn=t intended to do more than strip bamboo. Finally, in a world constrained by physical reality, all design requires trade-offs. Laptop computers must strike a balance between size, weight, and performance. Larger cars may be more safe and comfortable, but they also are more difficult to maneuver and consume more fuel. High ceilings make rooms more dramatic, but they also consume more energy. Because trade-offs cannot be avoided in this world, engineers must look for a compromise position that best achieves intended objectives.

 

For example, you can=t fault the design in a compact car because it ­doesn=t carry fifteen passengers. The objective is to carry four not fifteen passengers. The carmaker traded size for fuel economy and achieved the intended objective. Likewise, it could be that the design of the panda=s thumb is a trade-off that still achieves intended objectives. The thumb is just right for stripping bamboo. Perhaps, if the thumb had been designed any other way, it would have hindered the panda in some other area. We simply don=t know without knowing the objectives of the designer. What we do know is that Gould=s criticisms cannot succeed without knowing those objectives.

/by
God and the Astronomers

God and the Astronomers

,

Since the post Darwinists Have a Lot of Explaining to Do asks atheists to offer causes for at least ten truths about reality, I thought I would present my perspective on each of those truths.  We’ll start with the origin of the universe out of nothing.  The following is an excerpt from I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (p. 84) and follows a section about the evidence that the universe began with a Big Bang out of nothing.  I appreciate your comments.

 

So the universe had a beginning. What does that mean for the question of God’s existence? The man who now sits in Edwin Hubble’s chair at the Mount Wilson observatory has a few things to say about that. His name is Robert Jastrow, an astronomer we’ve already quoted in this chapter. In addition to serving as the director of Mount Wilson, Jastrow is the founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Obviously his credentials as a scientist are impeccable. That’s why his book God and the Astronomers made such an impression on those investigating the implications of the Big Bang, namely those asking the question “Does the Big Bang point to God?” Jastrow reveals in the opening line of chapter 1 that he has no religious axe to grind. He writes, “When an astronomer writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious matters.”

In light of Jastrow’s personal agnosticism, his theistic quotations are all the more provocative. After explaining some of the Big Bang evidence we’ve just reviewed, Jastrow writes, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

The overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang and its consistency with the biblical account in Genesis led Jastrow to observe in an interview, “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

By evoking the supernatural, Jastrow echoes the conclusion of Einstein contemporary Arthur Eddington. As we mentioned earlier, although he found it “repugnant,” Eddington admitted, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.”

Now why would Jastrow and Eddington admit that there are “supernatural” forces at work? Why ­couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe? Because these scientists know as well as anyone that natural forces– indeed all of nature– were created at the Big Bang. In other words, the Big Bang was the beginning point for the entire physical universe. Time, space, and matter came into existence at that point. There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Since a cause cannot come after its effect, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang. Therefore, there must be something outside of nature to do the job. That’s exactly what the word supernatural means.

The discoverers of the radiation afterglow, Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias, were not Bible-thumpers either. Both initially believed in the Steady State Theory. But due to the mounting evidence, they’ve since changed their views and acknowledged facts that are consistent with the Bible. Penzias admits, “The Steady State theory turned out to be so ugly that people dismissed it. The easiest way to fit the observations with the least number of parameters was one in which the universe was created out of nothing, in an instant, and continues to expand.”

Wilson, who once took a class from Fred Hoyle (the man who popularized the Steady State Theory in 1948), said, “I philosophically liked the Steady State. And clearly I’ve had to give that up.” When science writer Fred Heeren asked him if the Big Bang evidence is indicative of a Creator, Wilson responded, “Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.”  George Smoot echoed Wilson’s assessment. He said, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”

Robert Jastrow suggested the same when he ended his book God and the Astronomers with this classic line:  “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case

/by

The Jesus Freak Resource Center

,

More from the witty Mike Adams about our experience with the faculty at UNC Wilmington (I’m glad he has tenure– he doesn’t hold back at all.  It’s like he’s from New Jersey!).

/by

Darwinists Have a Lot of Explaining to Do

There have been a couple of posts on this blog that have spurred quite a good discussion (see below:  Atheists Have No Basis for Morality, and  “Expelled” is a Must See: Freedom is the Victim).  While there have been some good points made back and forth, it seems like we are getting down in the weeds on a couple of issues and perhaps ignoring the bigger picture.  So this post is an attempt to take a look at the bigger picture.  Namely, what is the correct worldview?  A worldview is an explanation for why things are the way they are.

Every effect has a cause and there are many effects about reality that cry out for an explanation.  A worldview, for example, answers questions such as: Why does this majestic and vast universe exist?  What caused these amazing beings we call life?  Why are we conscious?  Why is there good?  Why is there evil?  In fact, why is there anything at all?  Any good worldview must be able to explain at least the following:

  1. The origin of the universe out of nothing
  2. The design of the universe
  3. The origin of the four natural forces
  4. The origin of the laws of logic and reason itself
  5. The origin of the laws of mathematics
  6. The origin of the law of causality
  7. The origin of objective morality & human rights
  8. The origin and design of life
  9. The origin and design of new life forms
  10. The origin of intelligence, personality, and information

Anyone trying to tell you that his worldview is right must provide an adequate cause for all of those realities—atheists must, Christians must, and so must everyone in between.  It won’t do any good to have a possible explanation for one or two of them and ignore the rest.

For example, Darwinists (i.e. atheistic evolutionists) try to tell us they have a cause for number nine.  But even if we overlook the flaws and gaps in their theory and grant them that point, so what? It seems to me that their worldview can’t be considered adequate until they can provide an adequate cause for the other nine realities on the list.  In other words, even if new life forms can be explained by Darwinism, how do atheists explain everything else?  How does a biological theory explain the origin and design of the universe, physics, morality, reason, intelligence, etc.?

Now some of you may respond, “So what’s your explanation? Did God do everything? Isn’t that God-of-the-Gaps?”  I’ll address that in a future post (if you want to jump ahead, you can read it in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist). For now, forget my explanation.  What I’d like to see, if you are a Darwinist, is your explanation.  How does an atheist explain the other nine realities on the list?  I know it’s a lot to discuss.  Maybe take one at a time.  I look forward to your insights.  (Thanks especially to Christopher and JJ for participating.)

/by

The Chancellor’s Dog Ate My Homework

Click here to read more from columnist Mike Adams about the intolerance of the UNC Wilmington administration.  If Dr. Adams has his way, I will be going back to UNCW to contribute to the university’s three year “celebration” of Darwin.

/by

Atheists Have No Basis for Morality

, ,

Monday night at UNC Wilmington, despite no cooperation from the school (see my last post), just over 200 people showed up for part 1 of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.  Several atheists asked questions– actually made statements– and struggled greatly when I asked them to offer some objective basis for morality from their atheistic worldview.   They kept trying to give tests for how we know something is moral rather than why something is moral.  One atheist said “not harming people” is the standard.  But why is harming people wrong if there is no God?  Another said, “happiness” is the basis for morality.  (After I asked him, “Happiness according to who, Mother Teresa or Hitler?,”  he said, “I need to think about this more,” and then sat down.)  This says nothing about the intelligence of these people– there just is no good answer to the question.   Without God there is no basis for objective morals.  It’s just Mother Teresa’s opinion against Hitler’s.

The atheists’ responses to the cosmological and design arguments– the arguments that show us that the universe exploded into being out of nothing and did so with amazing design and precision– were “we don’t know how that happened.”   This is simply an evasion of the evidence that clearly points to an eternal, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal and moral First Cause of the universe.   Since nature itself was created, this Cause must be beyond nature or “supernatural.”

We got plenty of encouraging comments from the believers who attended. And there will be a lot more written about this event when popular columnist Mike Adams posts his next column later this week.  Just to give you a preview: during the Q&A Mike, who was our host, asked all faculty members to stand up.  Only one person other than himself did.  Out of 400-500 professors at UNC Wilmington– a school where the faculty claims to be champions of “diversity”– only two show up to a talk about the most important subject anyone could discuss (God)? Adams will have a field day with this.  Track his columns on Townhall.com here.

/by

UNC Won’t Allow Announcement of CrossExamined Seminar

Mike Adams, popular Townhall.com columnist and my host for tonight’s I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist talk at UNC Wilmington, reveals the anti-Christian bias in that school’s administration here.  They won’t even allow a post announcing the event on the the university’s “public” web bulletin board.   So much for the people who are supposed to be champions of tolerance, free expression, and diversity.

This bias is one reason CrossExamined.org exists– most  college campuses indoctrinate students into an anti-Christain viewpoint.  That’s why someone from the outside (us) must come in to give evidence for Christianity, and even then it is difficult to get the most basic of cooperation from the administration.   I’m not whining, just stating facts.

I’ll let you know how the event goes later this week.

/by

Sex Education: A Hypocrite vs. a Teacher

Now that the Center for Disease Control has revealed that 1 in 4 high school girls have a sexually transmitted disease, do you think it’s time to emphasize abstinence as the only 100% certain way to avoid the negative consequences of pre-marital sex?  Of course, liberals will have a conniption over such a suggestion.  But what is often forgotten by those who emphasize contraception as the answer is that the consequences of pre-marital sex are not merely physical.   There are intense emotional, mental, psychological, and spiritual consequences to having sex outside of marriage.  There is no condom for the heart.  Moreover, we should not be concerned only with avoiding the negatives of pre-marital sex, but the benefits of saving yourself for your husband or wife.  (Some mistakenly think the Bible is silent on pre-maritial sex, but it’s covered by the word “fornication.” Click here for more on that.)

Unfortunately, many parents are reluctant to give the abstinence message.  It’s not because they think their kids would be incapable or unwilling to comply, but because they themselves were not abstinent when they were teenagers.  “How could I be such a hypocrite,” they think.  Well, there’s a difference between being a hypocrite and being a teacher.  Hypocrites tell you not to do something while they willingly do it themselves.  Teachers, on the other hand, know that they’ve hurt themselves and others by their past sins and mistakes and want to teach you to take the better path.

I’m not suggesting that you reveal to your kids your own sexual history.  I’m simply saying that you don’t need to be morally perfect to be a good parent or a teacher.  We have no trouble teaching our kids not to steal despite the fact that every one of us has stolen something in our lives.  It’s time we applied that same logic to the issue of sex.  We can spare our kids a lot of pain, and protect them for their future, if we do.

/by