I wanted everyone to see this Christian Post article, that describes what it is like for mothers who trusted the school system to find out the hard way what schools are really like. Schools are dominated by women teachers and administrators. Their creed is “compassion” and “tolerance”. How does that work out for boys? Let’s get the stories straight from the mouths of nine mothers.
Here’s one example:
Approximately three years ago, Danae Johnson started to notice that her then-14-year-old son, Jeremy, a freshman in high school at the time, had some troubling text messages and pictures on his phone of kids who were dressed as the opposite sex.
At a mother-son dinner, he announced that he was transgender.
[…]Jeremy was a smaller kid, bullied ever since middle school, sometimes coming home with scrapes down his arms, his mother said. He consistently makes good grades, is in all honors classes and makes the honor roll. But being transgender meant he got to go from being bullied and struggling to popular. Female schoolmates have been particularly encouraging him in this new identity.
There was an attempt at suicide:
Johnson took him to the hospital immediately to get him evaluated. On the way there, Jeremy tried to make it seem like he was kidding. They spent several hours at the hospital where he was examined by four professionals, all of whom told Johnson that he was doing this for attention and that he was not genuinely suicidal.
And:
Johnson is “100% convinced” the bullying drove him into the gender identity madness. They removed him from that school and put him in a local Catholic school where the bullying ceased. Yet despite the improved environment, the trans identity continued to bring him attention, so he maintained it.
So what to make of this? Well, I really am glad to see the wife siding with her husband against the child’s peer-driven behavior. Today there is an epidemic of mothers bending over backwards to agree with their children. Instead of parenting them, they just affirm them and completely abdicate their role as parents. They want to be liked. This woman did not want to be liked.
Second point is that this story clearly shows how peer pressure plays a role in causing children to go down the transgender path. And the teachers and administrators have a secular left agenda, and that agenda is more important than your child.
A study that was first reported by Science Daily talked about the role of peer pressure. This article at The Federalist had a few examples to illustrate the conclusion of the study. I’ll pick two.
The study includes other eye-opening information, such as case studies of several children’s stories.
“A 14-year-old natal female and three of her natal female friends were taking group lessons together with a very popular coach. The coach came out as transgender, and, within one year, all four students announced they were also transgender.”
“A 14-year-old natal female and three of her natal female friends are part of a larger friend group that spends much of their time talking about gender and sexuality. The three natal female friends all announced they were trans boys and chose similar masculine names. After spending time with these three friends, the 14-year-old natal female announced that she was also a trans boy.”
And surprise! Giving gay rights groups access to schools makes the problem worse:
The study also may indicate that school “anti-bullying” programs typically created by LGBT activist organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign may help accelerate children identifying as transgender by pushing peers and authority figures to profusely express their support.
Coming out as transgender means instant fame and popularity, because you’re a victim, and everyone has to be nice to you… or else:
“Great increase in popularity among the student body at large. Being trans is a gold star in the eyes of other teens,” wrote one parent on the study response form. Another wrote, “not so much ‘popularity’ increasing as ‘status’ … also she became untouchable in terms of bullying in school as teachers who ignored homophobic bullying …are now all at pains to be hot on the heels of any trans bullying.”
I really think parents need to think twice before throwing their children into public schools and unmonitored social media.
The second mother from the CP article was even more interesting. She’s a far-left supporter of Planned Parenthood, NPR listener and Bill Maher watcher. She only has one child – I think she delayed having children to focus on her career.
Here’s what she said:
“Children are being groomed online by adults,” she said when asked what the public at large misunderstands about the transgender movement.
[…]“They are confusing kids. They’re ruining families. You thought you could have a child and make a difference,” she said. “It’s like they’re taking away the core of a family. And I look at everyone who is having a child, and I’m like, ‘Don’t do it,’ because you have no control over your child. Parental rights have been taken away. The schools are complicit in pushing this agenda.”
She recalled reading about Communist Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong’s rulership and how under his reign, children were instructed to turn on their parents and rupture the family structure.
“I feel like that’s what’s happening. It used to be a world where the parents had control. But it’s all taken away from us because our kid can complain to the school, and social services would be called because we’re not affirming them in this lie. We could lose custody. That’s a really scary, scary world we’re in.”
It’s a scary world that people on the secular left made.
Some people freak out when I say to be careful about getting married to someone who isn’t aware of these threats, and to especially NOT have children with a progressive spouse. But do you think the same thing after hearing from these mothers?
In my opinion, the two best books on intelligent design ever written are “Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Doubt”. The former is about biological information and the origin of Life. The latter is about the sudden origin of body plans and organ types during a brief period of biological history known as the Cambrian explosion. Either problem is lethal to a naturalistic view of biological origins. The author of these two books has just published the third book in the trilogy, and it looks like it will be the best one yet. You can pre-order it here, and get a bunch of extra goodies, including a PDF booklet that I assume you can share with people who don’t buy the book. Anyway, let’s see what the new book is about.
This book will show that reports of God’s decease have “been grossly exaggerated,” to appropriate a quote from Mark Twain. Instead, the truth is just the opposite of what Dawkins… and numerous other popular spokespersons for science have insisted. The properties of the universe and of life—specifically as they pertain to understanding the origin of the universe and life—are just “what we should expect” if a transcendent and purposive intelligence has acted in the history of life and the cosmos. Such an intelligence coincides with what human beings have called God, and so I call this story of reversal the return of the God hypothesis.
Meyer’s book is a masterclass, lucidly exploring every alternative from multiple points of view. It persuasively shows that the God Hypothesis is the best explanation of the fine-tuned, information-laden universe. The book does irreparable damage to atheist rhetoric.
JOHN C. WALTON, PHD, DSC, FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH, RESEARCH PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS
Reviewing all relevant evidence from cosmology to molecular biology, Meyer builds an irrefutable “case for God” while delivering an unanswerable set of logical and scientific broadsides against the currently fashionable materialistic/atheistic worldview. Meyer builds his argument relentlessly omitting no significant area of debate. The logic throughout is compelling and the book almost impossible to put down. Meyer is a master at clarifying complex issues making the text accessible to the widest possible audience. Readers will be struck by Meyer’s extraordinary depth of knowledge in every relevant area. The book is a masterpiece and will be widely cited in years to come. The best, most lucid, comprehensive defense of the ‘God hypothesis’ in print. No other publication comes close. A unique tour de force.
DR. MICHAEL DENTON, FORMER SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, BIOCHEMISTRY, UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO, AUTHOR, NATURE’S DESTINY
Meyer not only meticulously documents his scientific case for the God hypothesis, but he presents the story of the discoveries that support it in an engaging way. The arguments Meyer makes helped fuel my own personal transition from atheistic materialism to a rational belief in classical theism.
GÜNTER BECHLY, PH.D. IN PALEONTOLOGY, EBERHARD-KARLS UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN; FORMER SCIENTIFIC CURATOR, STATE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, STUTTGART, GERMANY; SENIOR SCIENTIST, BIOLOGIC INSTITUTE.
Not since Robert Jastrow’s God and the Astronomers, has a book touched me with the power of science to declare the glories of God. Jastrow kept me from the deism and atheism of college physics, and this book will surely have that same effect on the next generation. Whereas Jastrow left off too soon, Meyer skillfully follows the evidence to its logical and scientific conclusion, by examining recent developments not only in physics and cosmology, but also in biology. Warmly written with a historian’s eye, illustrated profusely, a perfect graduation gift for all those embarking on a lifetime of discovery.
ROB SHELDON, PH.D. IN SPACE PLASMA PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; FORMER NASA ANALYST AND INSTRUMENT DESIGNER, AUTHOR, THE LONG ASCENT
And this one from a Nobel Laureate in Physics:
This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science.
BRIAN JOSEPHSON, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY, NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS
This is the video that accompanies the launch of the book:
I’ve already pre-ordered the book for myself and my Bible study partner. She is as excited to read it as I am.
There’s a short 22-minute video show that Dr. Meyer did with radio show host Michael Medved here, with show notes, if you want to see how he explains some of the concepts in the book.
In my opinion, no one has done a better job of writing books that equip Christians to make their case with evidence than Dr. Stephen C. Meyer. By the way, Dr. Meyer is the one who does the presentations for Focus on the Family’s DVD series “True U”, which is designed to equip students going to college. So, if you’re wondering if he knows how to explain things to ordinary people, he absolutely does.
There is a lot of “noise” in the Christian community from authors who do not equip you to win arguments. Think of popular authors like G. K. Chesterton, A. W. Tozer, Francis Chan, Philip Yancey, John Piper and other wordsmiths. They write entertaining words, but you can’t win arguments by reciting poetry or having happy feelings. I’m an engineer, I want things that work in the real world. Most Christian authors aren’t experienced at debating skeptics, or at replying to the challenges of their critics. Dr. Meyer is rooted in evidence and does an excellent job of interacting with his critics, and responding to them. I’ve even featured some of his debates on this blog. Dr. Meyer is my favorite author for equipping myself to win arguments. If you like to argue, and you like to win, get the book. You can have a lot of fun with a book like this.
The topic: What are the arguments that make belief in God reasonable or unreasonable?
First speech: arguments for reasonableness of belief in God
Second speech: respond to arguments against reasonableness of belief in God
Eight arguments:
Contingency argument: God – a transcendent, personal being – is the explanation of why a contingent universe exists.
Cosmological argument: God is the cause of the beginning of the universe, which is attested by physics and cosmology.
Applicability of mathematics to nature: God is the best explanation for the applicability of mathematics to nature.
Fine-tuning argument: God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life.
Intentionality of conscious states: God is the best explanation of the intentionality of our mental states.
The moral argument: God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties.
The resurrection of Jesus: God is the best explanation for the core of historical facts accepted by most ancient historians across the ideological spectrum.
Religious experience: God is the best explanation of our immediate experience and knowledge of his existence.
Dr. Rosenberg’s opening speech
First argument: The fallacy of ad hominem
I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry
Dr. Craig has said all of that before in other debates
You didn’t need to come out on this cold night
Craig’s arguments have all been refuted
Dr. Craig just doesn’t listen
Dr. Craig is not interested in getting at the truth
Dr. Craig is just interested in scoring debate points
The adversarial system is the wrong approach to decide truth
Dr. Craig is very confident about his take of physics
Second argument: The fallacy of arguing from authority
95% of members of the NAS are atheists
Therefore Dr. Craig cannot use science
Third argument: Effects don’t require causes
I am going to pretend that Craig said that “every effect requires a cause”
Quantum mechanics shows that some effects occur without causes
A particle of uranium (which is not nothing, it is something) decays without a cause
This uncaused effect is the same as the universe coming into being out of nothing uncaused
Therefore the principle of sufficient reason is false
Fourth argument: Silicon-based life and the multiverse
If these constants had been different, maybe we would have other kinds of intelligent life, like silicon-based life
Carbon-based life is not the only kind of life, maybe you can have other kinds of life, none of which have been observed
There could be different kinds of life in other areas of the universe that we can’t see
There are things we can’t see that disprove the current physics that we can see
Quantum foam is evidence that a multiverse exists
The multiverse would solve the problem of fine-tuning
Fifth argument: The Euthyphro dilemma
The moral argument is refuted by Euthyphro dilemma
Dr. Craig is such a moron that he has never heard of the Euthyphro dilemma ever before
This is found in the first and simplest of Plato’s dialogs
Why is Dr. Craig so stupid that he has not read this simple dialog ever before?
Evolution explains why humans evolve arbitrary customs and conventions that vary by time and place
Alternative moral theories: utilitarianism, social contract, etc. that don’t require God
Sixth argument: Mormonism undermines Dr. Craig’s three minimal facts about Jesus
Why is Dr. Craig so stupid and ignorant to persist in pushing such an ignorant, stupid argument?
Mormonism is a silly religion that is not historically well founded
Therefore, Jesus was not buried
Islam is a silly religion that is not historically grounded
Therefore, the tomb was not found empty
Scientology is a silly religion that is not historically grounded
Therefore, the eyewitnesses didn’t have post-mortem appearances
Eyewitness testimony is unreliable in some cases
Therefore, eyewitness testimony was unreliable in this case
Apparitions of Mary are bizarre
Therefore, the majority of historians are wrong to think that the disciples saw post-mortem appearances
Seventh argument: Deductive problem of evil
Evil and suffering are logically incompatible with an all good, all powerful God
Eight argument: God is not just to allow evil and suffering
God cannot make the evils of this life right in the afterlife
Dr. Craig’s first rebuttal
Dr. Rosenberg sketched the deductive argument from evil.
Dr. Rosenberg presupposes naturalism. Naturalism is a false theory of knowledge:
1. It’s too restrictive: There are truths that cannot be proved by natural science.
2. It’s self-refuting: no scientific proof for naturalism exists.
That’s why epistemological naturalism is considered false by most philosophers of science.
But more importantly than that: Epistemological naturalism does not imply metaphysical naturalism. (E.g. – W. Quine)
Dr. Rosenberg has to present arguments in favor of (metaphysical) naturalism, not just assume that (metaphysical) naturalism is true.
Dr. Craig presented eight arguments against metaphysical naturalism taken from Rosenberg’s own book:
1. The argument from the intentionality (aboutness) of mental states implies non-physical minds (dualism), which is incompatible with naturalism
2. The existence of meaning in language is incompatible with naturalism, Rosenberg even says that all the sentences in his own book are meaningless
3. The existence of truth is incompatible with naturalism
4. The argument from moral praise and blame is incompatible with naturalism
5. Libertarian freedom (free will) is incompatible with naturalism
6. Purpose is incompatible with naturalism
7. The enduring concept of self is incompatible with naturalism
8. The experience of first-person subjectivity (“I”) is incompatible with naturalism
Metaphysical naturalism is false: it is irrational and it contradicts our experience of ourselves.
And epistemological naturalism is compatible with theism.
Rebutting Dr. Rosenberg’s responses:
1. Contingency: no response
2. Cosmological: he mis-states the first premise to say every effect… when it is whatever begins to exist…, the origin of the universe was not from a vacuum, virtual particles come from a vacuum not nothing, there are interpretations of QM that are compatible with determinism. Rosenberg has to believe that the entire universe popped into being from non-being.
3. Mathematics: no response
4. Fine-tuning: the multiverse is refuted by empirical observations of the universe. Without fine-tuning, it’s not that we still have silicon to make life out of. It’s that we lose basic minimal things like chemical diversity, matter, stars, planets, etc. No life of any kind, not just no carbon-based life.
5. Intentionality: no response.
6. Moral argument: the answer to the dilemma is that you split the dilemma: God is the standard of good, and the commands flow from his unchanging moral nature. The commands are not arbitrary, and the standard is not external to God. Dr. Rosenberg is a nihilist and he cannot ground good and evil on his nihilistic view.
7. Resurrection: The Gospels are early eyewitness testimony. Mormonism and Islam have nothing to do with the minimal set of historical facts about Jesus agreed to by the majority of ancient historians across the ideological spectrum, general statements against eyewitnesses do not refute the specific eyewitness testimony in this case.
8. Religious experience: No response.
Dr. Rosenberg’s first rebuttal
I wrote a book and you should buy it, because it got me invited to this debate. Let me repeat the title a few times for you. Please buy it.
Dr. Craig is right, there are multiple interpretations of QM, not just the one I presented, including deterministic ones.
All the disturbing implications of naturalism that Dr. Craig stated follow from metaphysical naturalism, and metaphysical naturalism is true. (Note: he equates science with metaphysical naturalism)
Science proves that metaphysical naturalism is true, but I won’t say what specific scientific tests prove my philosophical assumption of metaphysical naturalism.
I’ll pretend that the Big Bang (science) doesn’t disprove naturalism, like Dr. Craig said. Again. (covers ears) La la la, there is no Big Bang.
We didn’t come here to debate epistemological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.
Let me explain the problem of intentionality since I’m so smart and no one knows what it means.
There are many answers to this problem of intentionality.
My answer is that most scientists are naturalists, therefore naturalism is true, regardless of the argument from intentionality of mental states.
That’s how I would respond to one of the eight problems with naturalism that Dr. Craig raised. I won’t answer the other seven problems.
It is an argument from ignorance to argue that the applicability of mathematics to the universe requires a designer, because there are non-Euclidean geometries. Craig’s argument, which he gets from people like respected physicists like Eugene Wigner, is bizarre. It is bizarre, therefore I refute Eugene Wigner and all the other scholars who make that argument. It is bizarre! Bizarre!
Deductive problem of evil: there is no response to this argument, certainly not Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense. The deductive argument from evil has not been entirely abandoned at all! It’s not like arch-atheist J.L. Mackie himself admits that the deductive problem of evil doesn’t lead to a logical inconsistency between evil and God.
Dr. Craig has to tell me why God allows evil or God doesn’t exist.
It is offensive that Dr. Craig cannot tell me why God allows every evil and suffering that occurs.
He literally said this: “I will become a Christian if Dr. Craig can tell me why God allowed EVERY EVIL THAT OCCURRED IN THE LAST 3.5 BILLION YEARS”
Dr. Craig’s second rebuttal
We are not in a position to know why God allows specific instances of evil and suffering.
God cannot force people to freely do anything – freedom is not compatible with determinism. Freedom is a good, but freedom opens up the possibility of moral evil. You cannot have the good of free will without allowing people to choose to do morally evil things.
God can permit evil and suffering in order to bring more people into a relationship with him.
The atheist has to show that God could allow less evil and achieve more knowledge of God in order to say there is too much evil.
The purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God.
Dr. Craig quotes agnostic Paul Draper (Purdue) and Peter Van Inwagen (Notre Dame) to state that the deductive problem of evil is dead because of free will and morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil.
1. Contingency: no response.
2. Cosmological: QM does not apply, because the universe came from nothing, not a vacuum, and QM only works in a vacuum.
3. Mathematics: He mentions alternatives like non-Euclidean geometry, but we have to explain the structure of THIS universe.
4. Fine-tuning: ???
5. Intentional states: intentional mental states proves that minds exist, which fits with theism better than it fits with atheism.
6. Moral argument: You need God to ground morality, and Dr. Rosenberg believes in morality. He needs God to ground objective moral values and duties.
7. Historical argument: He has to respond to the minimal facts supported by the consensus of ancient historians across the ideological spectrum.
8. The problems of naturalism: He says that you can’t have science without naturalism, but you can have science with EPISTEMOLOGICAL NATURALISM, and theists accept science and methodological naturalism. We don’t accept METAPHYSCIAL NATURALISM because of the eight problems Craig presented, like intentionality, first-person, persistence of self, etc. You can believe in both science and theism, by embracing epistemological naturalism, while rejecting methaphysical naturalism.
Dr. Rosenberg’s second rebuttal
Dr. Craig hasn’t answered many of my points, I won’t say which ones though.
Debates don’t work as a way of deciding what’s true, so we should overturn the entire criminal justice system.
The principle of sufficient reason is false because it is disconfirmed by quantum mechanics. And quantum mechanics (vacuum and virtual particles that exist for a short time) is similar to the origin of the universe (nothing and entire universe and 14 billion years).
We know that alpha particles come into being without cause all the time from a quantum vacuum for a tiny sub-second duration before going out of existence, so we can say that the entire physical universe came into being for 14 billion years from absolute nothing which is not a quantum vacuum.
Peter Van Inwagen is the best metaphysician working today, and he says that my deductive argument from evil is not decisive, it’s not a successful argument. (Why is he undermining his own problem of evil argument????!)
Dr. Craig invoked Plantinga’s free will defense to the deductive POE. Freedom allows us to do evil. God could have given us free will without evil and suffering. I won’t show how, but I’ll just assert it, because debates are such a bad forum for supplying evidence for my speculative assertions.
If you answer the question 3 + 5 as being 8, then you don’t have free will – you are biologically determined if you answer 8, because everyone answers 8, and that means everyone is biologically determined with no free will.
Why can’t God give us free will and then prevent us from making a free choice?
No scholars date the gospels earlier than 60-70 AD, especially not atheists like James Crossley who dates Mark to 40 AD. Therefore Jesus’ burial isn’t historical, like the majority of scholars across the broad spectrum of scholarship agree it is.
The original New Testament documents were written in Aramaic.
All New Testament scholars are orthodox Christians, like atheist Robert Funk for example.
Dr. Craig’s concluding speech
In order to sustain the deductive argument from evil, Dr. Rosenberg must show that God could create a world of free creatures with less evil.
Principle of Sufficient Reason: not using the general principle of sufficient reason, but a more modest version of this states that contingent things should have an explanation for their existence. And we know that the universe is a contingent.
The New Testament was not written in Aramaic, they were written in Greek. Dr. Rosenberg is wrong there too.
(Dr. Craig spends the rest of his concluding speech giving his testimony and urging people to investigate the New testament).
Dr. Rosenberg’s concluding speech
Some long-dead French guy named Laplace said that he has no need of that (God) hypothesis. He did not know about any of Dr. Craig’s arguments made in this debate tonight when he said that, though.
There is no need to explain how the universe began or how the universe is finely-tuned if you just assume metaphysical naturalism on faith.
The Easter Bunny, therefore atheism.
Most scientists are atheists, therefore atheism.
You can do a lot of science without God, just don’t look at the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, or the other parts of science that Craig mentioned, as well as the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, the habitability argument, and so on.
You can be a Christian, but good Christians should not use arguments and evidence.
Good Christians should be irrational and ignorant. Bad Christians look for arguments and evidence from science and history.
Good Christians should embrace the absurd. Bad Christians want to search for truth and use logic and evidence.
WINTERY KNIGHT 